Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Railways (South-east)

Michael Gove: If he will make a statement on rail infrastructure in the south-east.

Stephen Ladyman: The national rail network in south-east England, like that of the rest of the United Kingdom, is owned and operated by Network Rail, which is investing substantial amounts across its network, including in south-east England, to help to address years of under-investment. Total investment in 2005–06 is expected to be about £3 billion.

Michael Gove: I thank the Minister for his reply. He will be aware that the Evening Standard has been running a campaign to stress the importance of safety in our stations, but he will also be aware that safety is not only an issue in the capital. In my constituency, Camberley station has witnessed an upsurge in antisocial behaviour recently. I invite the Minister, when he invites companies to tender for the franchise currently held by South West Trains, to ensure that passenger safety and security are at the heart of the tendering process so that my constituents have the protection they deserve when they travel.

Stephen Ladyman: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that everybody should feel safe on the railway, and I can give him the assurance he seeks. In the consultation document about the letting of the franchise, we made it clear that safety, security and the condition of stations were key factors, which we shall reflect in the tender documents when they are issued to the shortlisted bidders.

Celia Barlow: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Department for Transport strategy for rail services from Brighton proposes the closure of the direct train line between Brighton and Watford? The train link to Reading is also due to be abolished. That is inconvenient for the elderly and disabled among my constituents. Given those changes to rail services from Brighton, what assurances can my hon. Friend give my elderly and disabled constituents that barrier-free travel north to stations outside London will still be accessible to them?

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend should be aware that we are looking into a number of opportunities to change services. There is a consultation and her views will be taken into account. She should bear in mind, however, that we need to ensure that we make the best use of existing rail capacity, and underused services sometimes have to be rationalised. When that happens, we have to ensure that there are alternative services, but at the end of the day we have to get the greatest number of people on to existing capacity, which is what we seek to do. However, my hon. Friend's views and those of her constituents will of course be taken into account.

Richard Bacon: What discussions has the Minister held with Network Rail about improvement of the electrification of the stretch between London Liverpool Street and Shenfield, which will not only be important for the Olympics but which Network Rail says is the single biggest impediment to improving punctuality between London and Norwich? If he has not held such discussions, will he do so; and if he does so, will he let me know about it?

Stephen Ladyman: I have had no such discussions, but I am sure that my colleagues who more regularly deal with such things are in constant communication with Network Rail. They will have heard the hon. Gentleman and I shall ensure that he is notified when discussions take place.

Meg Hillier: Today in London we are all celebrating because at last the Mayor of London has been able to take over the running of the north London lines, which is a triumph for national Government working with London government. We will see a £25 million enhancement programme for our stations, eight trains an hour on the north London line through my constituency—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Meg Hillier: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should sit down while I am speaking.
	The purpose of a supplementary question is to ask a question, not to make a statement about the good work that the Mayor of London will be doing for us.

Meg Hillier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for putting me right. I wanted to ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he agrees that the north London lines should be included on London's tube map to celebrate that success.

Stephen Ladyman: I have noted my hon. Friend's comments and certainly share her view about the excellent work of the Labour Mayor of London. I shall pass on her comments about the tube map.

Vincent Cable: The Secretary of State made a welcome announcement a few months ago that the Eurostar terminal could be used for domestic services, but is the Minister aware that it was not included in the tender proposals for the South West Trains franchise? Will he do something about that?

Stephen Ladyman: Yes, the company will be able to use those facilities and we shall look into how we can facilitate that.

Martin Linton: I too welcome the decision to bring the west London line and the north London line under the control of Transport for London, and urge my hon. Friend to ensure that it is accompanied by sufficient borrowing powers in the capital spending review to ensure that TFL can develop London's orbital lines into a real service for Londoners.

Stephen Ladyman: Of course the funding will be transferred, but I should add that London has already received a very generous settlement from the Government.

Chris Grayling: I listened carefully to the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) about the South West Trains franchise. I read the tender document this morning. It sets out about 12 overall objectives for the new franchise agreement. It makes no reference at all to safety. Why?

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman should read it again: the consultation document very clearly refers to safety and to the state of stations.

Chris Grayling: I did read it, and it is the Minister who may need to read again, because I can assure him that it makes no reference to safety. The Government promised in their 10-year plan to enable passengers to travel safety and to feel secure. Since the plan was first published, the number of violent assaults taking place on trains and at stations has risen by 43 per cent. Does the Minister think that the Government are keeping that promise?

Stephen Ladyman: First, let me tell the hon. Gentleman what the consultation document states, since he seems to have had a little bit of word blindness:
	"Bidders will be expected to demonstrate in their bids how they will achieve a continuing improvement in service levels at stations, address issues of safety and security, accessibility".
	Perhaps he will get himself a new pair of reading glasses.
	Certainly, it is true that the figures on attacks at stations that we produced this week are very disappointing. However, the mechanism by which they were calculated changed halfway through, which gives them a false air, unfortunately. Nevertheless, one is one too many. That is why we have increased the number of British Transport police on mainline stations and the underground by 50 per cent in the past two years—we have increased it by 300 in the past year alone—and it is why we are working to invest in CCTV at stations and to improve station services. We are making that investment because we believe in ensuring people's safety, and the hon. Gentleman has consistently voted against that.

Network Rail

Rosie Cooper: What steps he is taking to ensure greater co-operation between Network Rail and train operators.

Derek Twigg: The changes made in the Railways Act 2005 are designed to improve efficiency and co-operation across the rail industry. As part of those changes, Network Rail is now accountable for performance and co-ordinating rail industry planning and operational management.

Rosie Cooper: Under the Tories' botched privatisation, Railtrack and the train operating companies were constantly fighting one another, and the main losers were the travelling public. With Network Rail in place, instead of Railtrack, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that all parts of the rail industry work together for a better service—for example, the rail interchange that was opened last week in my constituency at Burscough? What improvements does he believe—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One supplementary question is fine.

Derek Twigg: It is important to point out that, of course, working together is a very significant part of improving performance. That is why reliability is improving, with the number of on-time trains reaching more than 85 per cent and, of course, with the record investment of £87 million a week that is going into the railways. We have introduced joint control centres along lines, such as Birmingham to Waterloo, and joint improvement plans are being set up between the train operating companies and Network Rail. Of course, we are working together on projects such as that in my hon. Friend's constituency at Burscough Bridge station, which I opened last week.

Peter Luff: Bitter experience—most recently, yesterday—has taught me to expect all trains from Worcestershire to London Paddington to be at least half an hour late, largely owing to the creaking infrastructure. Will the Minister urge Network Rail to co-operate much more effectively with the train operating company and listen to First Great Western's very practical and affordable suggestions to improve the infrastructure on the line and the reliability of services?

Derek Twigg: Clearly, part of the problem is that money was not spent on the infrastructure over the previous few decades, particularly under the Conservative Government, but I have raised the issue with First Great Western and Network Rail. Of course, we want to see further improvements, and significant investment has been put in place on the Great Western lines to ensure that improvements take place over the coming years.

Paddy Tipping: Does greater co-operation include discussions with the Office of the Rail Regulator? Will my hon. Friend look particularly at services on the Great North Eastern Railway main line, where the Office of the Rail Regulator has blocked plans from GNER to deliver the extra 12 services promised in its franchise?

Derek Twigg: I understand exactly what my hon. Friend is saying. Of course we have made representations about the fact that we have concerns, and we want services to improve as well—so, yes, such discussions take place.

Tom Brake: Co-operation between Network Rail and the train companies is so poor that three out of 10 cancelled trains are cancelled because of Network Rail. Co-operation between the Department for Transport, the Association of Train Operating Companies, Network Rail and Alstom is so poor that Alstom has closed the UK's only test track for trains without formal prior discussions. Does the Minister believe that the Secretary of State for Transport's efforts to improve co-operation on the railways have been more or less effective than his intervention in the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election?

Derek Twigg: The point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make about the Alstom test track is an interesting one. The fact remains that railway performance is improving. We have record investment in new rolling stock, the youngest railway stock that we have had for a number of years and more than 1 billion passengers used the railways last year. It is the fastest-growing railway in Europe. Significant improvements are being made but, of course, there are still things to do. About 20,000 train services run every week, about 1.2 per cent. of which are cancelled. Of course, we need to improve that, and it is something that we are working on.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend deny the suggestion that the only way in which the executives of Network Rail can be persuaded to fulfil their full potential for their not inconsiderable salaries is by privatising Network Rail?

Derek Twigg: I do not think that we have any proposals to privatise Network Rail, but the working relationship between the train operating companies, Network Rail and the Government has been important in securing improvements to the railways. Network Rail has improved its performance and its efficiency, but there is clearly still more to do on the railways. We want to see further improvements on the improvements that we have already made.

Julie Kirkbride: Does the Minister realise that one of the biggest obstacles to improving the rail infrastructure is the sheer complexity of the number of bodies involved? For example, we desperately need an extension to the platform in Bromsgrove, but it is not clear who is responsible for paying for it. Is it Network Rail; is it Central Trains, which is about to lose its franchise; is it Worcestershire county council under the local transport plan; or should the Minister's Department provide the money? Will he tell me who we need to go to in order to get this necessary rail infrastructure improvement?

Derek Twigg: If we are talking about the mess made to the organisation of the railways, we have to go back to the Tory party and what it did to Railtrack and so on. We have now set up a new structure on the railways involving the Department for Transport, Network Rail, which is responsible for performance, operating and improvement, and the train operating companies, which are responsible for improving the service. Clearly, the answer to the hon. Lady's question depends on who owns the platform. Bringing together the partners is an important part of any business case or reasoning for developing the platform or changing it.

Rail Links

Jim Dobbin: What plans he has to support voluntary and community rail links; and if he will make a statement.

Derek Twigg: The Government encourage communities to support franchised local railway services via community rail partnerships. We recognise the role of voluntary organisations in running independent railways. We will not normally provide direct financial support for independent lines, but will consider working with local authorities to implement specific improvements where they are value for money.

Jim Dobbin: The East Lancashire Railway is a very successful voluntary rail company. It passes through my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) and for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). However, there is no direct passenger rail link from those areas to Manchester Victoria. Will the Minister consider a joint evaluation with the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority to see whether it is possible to create a link through Heywood that would satisfy, and provide benefits to, the public and all three constituencies?

Derek Twigg: I know that my hon. Friend is a very strong campaigner for improving public transport. A few months ago, I opened a new bus station in his constituency and I know that he also campaigns to try to improve rail links. The East Lancashire Railway is part of a heritage railway that brings in lots of income and visitors to the area. However, on the point about extending its use to mainline services, I must say that we have not received any representations from Manchester or Lancashire about reopening the line for passenger services. However, we will consider any scheme that may be put forward.

Andrew Turner: The Isle of Wight railway now has a community rail partnership in place. When the Minister lets the new franchise for the Isle of Wight, will he invite potential bidders to propose as many imaginative schemes as possible? For example, that could include consideration of whether it should be light rail or heavy rail, the installation of a crossing point at Brading to improve connectivity to Portsmouth and Waterloo and improvements to the rolling stock. We have some of the oldest in the country—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can drop the Minister a note on these matters.

Derek Twigg: I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. We have gone through a consultation process on the new franchise, and clearly we will examine its results when we consider the invitation to tender. He is right to highlight the importance of community railways. We now have six such schemes throughout the country and there is increasing support for community rail development, so it is especially important to involve the community, whether that is businesses, local authorities or members of the public.

Mary Creagh: My hon. Friend will be aware of the excellent work that is done by the Penistone line partnership in my constituency. The partnership runs the Huddersfield-Penistone-Sheffield line and last year more than 1 million passengers used its facilities. What is my hon. Friend doing to increase passenger numbers on the railway further and reduce costs to the travelling public?

Derek Twigg: As my hon. Friend says, the scheme is a successful development that forms part of the Government's overall commitment to community rail development. As part of the overall growth in the railways, we want more people to use the line. If we get more of the community involved in supporting the service, including businesses and local authorities, and make the service attractive, I am sure that it will continue to grow.

Road Pricing

Stewart Jackson: If he will make a statement on the Government's plans for road pricing.

Alistair Darling: We are working with local authorities and other areas to develop a road pricing scheme that tackles congestion. That will allow us to pilot technology for a national scheme.

Stewart Jackson: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. The Transport Committee has called for a proper evaluation of congestion and its impact on the UK economy. Is such an analysis by the Department in the pipeline, and when is it likely to be published?

Alistair Darling: Numerous studies have made the rather obvious point that the more congested the road system, the greater the disadvantage to the economy. The bigger question to address is what we do about that. Clearly, we need additional capacity, which is why, for example, we completed a major widening of the M25 just before Christmas. We need to manage the road system better, which we are doing throughout the network with, for example, traffic management officers clearing up after accidents. However, those two measures would not be enough on their own. We need to examine whether it might be better to replace the existing system of paying for road use with distance-based charging. As I have said on many occasions, if we do not do that, we will face total gridlock. We are not short of analysis, but we need to concentrate on solutions that will reduce congestion in the longer term.

Denis MacShane: While my right hon. Friend is working on that, are we not making the best the enemy of the good? Many of our motorways are almost urban slip roads around the great cities of Britain, yet we have one of the few motorway systems that involves no charge. Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing in the interim a vignette of £30 to £40 for motorway users, including all foreign cars and lorries that come into Britain, but allowing rural people who do not use motorways not to pay that extra money? Such a simple and practical scheme could be put in place until his all-singing and all-dancing road pricing and satellite in the sky operation comes into being, for which we might have to wait a little after the end of his term of office.

Alistair Darling: Having been here for almost four years, I would not bank on that. I am not sure how much thought my right hon. Friend has given to the matter, but it simply would be neither feasible nor desirable simply to toll motorways if we thought that we would adopt a completely different method of charging for roads a few years later. I have said before that a national road pricing scheme is some years off, but I believe that we can pilot such a scheme regionally in the next five years or so. Simply charging for some roads, but not for others—[Interruption.] I shall come on to the vignette in a moment. Although my right hon. Friend prides himself on his knowledge of matters European, I think that he would find that the Commission would come down very hard on us if we tried to impose something that discriminated against foreign drivers, because the Single European Act is supposed to stop that. The short answer is that I do not think that he is advocating a good idea, but I will be more than happy to discuss it with him afterwards.

Nick Hurd: The Secretary of State announced that 30 local authorities have expressed an interest in piloting a road-pricing scheme. Will he expand a little on the way in which the Government plan to help those authorities that wish to proceed only on a revenue-neutral basis, or which are concerned about the impact of road pricing on social inclusion?

Alistair Darling: I do not think any of the authorities that have expressed an interest in road pricing have looked at whether it should be anything more than revenue neutral. I announced just before Christmas the funding that was available for seven areas, and later this year I will announce funding for more areas. I have made it clear, however, that we are prepared to provide that funding, because I want to be able to choose, probably next year, a particular area where we can pilot the scheme. Until we conduct a pilot we will not be able to bottom out the technical problems or evaluate how people behave in practice. However, I am proposing to help local authorities to do so by providing funding.

Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend will be aware that organisations such as the Road Haulage Association are extremely concerned about any further increases in road pricing. Has he recently met the association and, if not, would he consider doing so in the near future to discuss its concerns?

Alistair Darling: My fellow Ministers and I meet the Road Haulage Association regularly. It was supportive of our work on lorry road user charging—a form of road pricing—which was included in the national scheme. It recognises that anything that we can do to reduce congestion is of great help to its members. It believes that that means that everyone who uses our roads should pay to do so—I think that that is the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr.   MacShane) was trying to make earlier—which would be a far better system in many ways than the current one.

Owen Paterson: In December, the Department of Trade and Industry announced that the Government have invested €136 million—according to my calculations, that is about £93 million—through the British national space centre and the Department for Transport in Galileo. Do the Government intend to introduce a comprehensive road pricing scheme for both private and commercial vehicles using Galileo technology?

Alistair Darling: It remains to be seen whether we use Galileo or GPS. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that last year I made the point that many organisations, including insurance companies, wish to provide satellite equipment for cars. Norwich Union, for example, offers pay-as-you-drive insurance. The Government believe that if we can use existing technology or work in partnership with others who do so that would be much better than the Government having to invent a system on their own, as the history of doing so by successive Governments has not been an altogether happy one. Galileo would have other uses besides road transport.

Andrew MacKinlay: Would it be indelicate to raise the question of the tolling of bridges, particularly the M25 bridge in my constituency, which is road-priced. Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that if road pricing for the M25 is introduced the burden of a toll for my constituents in south Essex and for people in north Kent will be lifted, as they subsidise M25 users with their tolls on the Dartford crossing, which is unfair and unsustainable?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is quite right. If we introduced a system of national road pricing the whole question of tolls on that bridge and, indeed, others would have to be considered at the same time.

Rail Subsidies (Consultants)

Tony Baldry: What consultants he has employed to advise on subsidy for rail services; what the terms of reference are for this project; and if he will make a statement.

Derek Twigg: Consultants are employed to advise on replacing rail franchises on a case-by-case basis. They typically assist in drawing up invitations to tender and in evaluating the bids received. This will involve understanding the level of subsidy or premium payable in each case.

Tony Baldry: Does the Minister agree that someone who wants to travel from Banbury to Oxford by rail to go to work, or someone who wants to travel from Bicester to Oxford by rail to study is no less deserving of rail subsidy mile for mile than a long-distance commuter? If there is to be a debate about rail subsidy and which services the taxpayer subsidises will it be an open and transparent debate, not one that simply closes local lines?

Derek Twigg: A great deal of subsidy is still paid to the railways—£87 million a week is spent on them, with improvements in reliability and more passengers voting with their feet and using the railways. The hon. Gentleman may be referring to the recently published closures guidance, which we were required to produce under the Railways Act 2005 to replace the Strategic Rail Authority closures guidance, which will cease to be produced when the SRA is wound up. We want to ensure that the railways expand and that more people use them. There are no plans for wholesale station or line closures. More people are using the railways, and more investment is being made in them. This is about a growing railway, and we want to achieve a better, more efficient railway.

Phyllis Starkey: The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) asked about the service between Bicester and Bletchley and the spur from Aylesbury to Bletchley. Does my hon. Friend agree that in assessing that section of rail, account should be taken of the Milton Keynes-south midlands growth area, the additional housing around Aylesbury and Milton Keynes, and the contribution that that section of rail will make to facilitating that housing development and encouraging the people who live in those houses to travel by rail, instead of adding to the burden on the road system?

Derek Twigg: As my hon. Friend knows, I went to Milton Keynes to announce a significant investment in Milton Keynes railway station to ensure greater capacity, taking account of the growth in housing. I am sure she will agree that that is an excellent scheme, which is benefiting from community infrastructure funds. It will allow improvements in capacity and in rail services generally for people in that part of the country.

Gregory Campbell: In view of the continuing support that the Government have given to rail services in rural parts of the United Kingdom, will the Minister assure my constituents that he will liaise with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to ensure that a rail line under threat that goes through my constituency will receive increased support to ensure its continued maintenance for commuters using the line?

Derek Twigg: It would be best if the hon. Gentleman spoke to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I will pass on his comments.

Bus Regulation

Tony Lloyd: If he will extend bus regulation as it applies in London to the rest of the country.

Alistair Darling: As part of the preparation needed to implement a road pricing scheme, I am considering ways to make it easier to run bus services by mutual agreement. We are discussing with the Office of Fair Trading how this can be done, consistent with competition law.

Tony Lloyd: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's helpful remarks. He is aware that when people from a city such as Manchester travel to London, they are often amazed at how comprehensive the bus service is. They compare it with the post-deregulation period in Manchester, where bus services have been withdrawn from the estates and other areas where people live, and they draw the conclusion that we need re-regulation to ensure that we get back to the kind of bus services that London has and other cities expect. Can my right hon. Friend help us with that?

Alistair Darling: I think I can. As my hon. Friend knows, my Department and I have been in discussion with the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority, among others, about how we improve public transport, particularly bus services. The problem is that it is not possible for representatives of a local authority and two bus companies to sit down and reach an agreement about the adequacy of the bus service, matters of fares and so on. If we are to achieve greater demand management and introduce road pricing and other measures, there must be such an agreement. If we are to say to people, as in London, "Don't take your car, but get on to public transport", the public transport must be available in the first place. I am not satisfied that the present system of dealing with buses deals with that. I have said before that I do not want to go back to the pre-1986 legislation because that had its own problems, but I think we can make a quantifiable change in the way in which bus services are provided outside London. That is what we are discussing, and I hope to have something further to say in the not too distant future.

John Leech: I am sure other right hon. and hon. Members will be as flabbergasted as I was to hear that the number of bus services in the north-west traffic areas increased, according to parliamentary answers that I have received. That certainly is not the case in south Manchester, where we have seen the systematic removal of services over a number of years, including most recently the service to Manchester royal infirmary on a Sunday. Does the Secretary of State agree that tougher regulatory control would allow the PTA to direct bus services where they are most needed, rather than where the bus companies can make the most profit?

Alistair Darling: Bus services and routes will change from time to time, depending on passenger demand, but the changes that I am proposing will make it easier, provided that they are implemented with other measures to reduce congestion, to ensure that bus services run where they are needed. As I said a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), if we want people to use the bus, we must ensure that there is an adequate bus service. However, bus services, like any other public service, will change depending on what people want.

Andrew Gwynne: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's response, may I ask whether he is aware that Stagecoach Manchester has told me that it wants the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive to have more powers, not least to co-ordinate in a stronger way the bus network and to tackle congestion, which is having a detrimental effect on services, particularly in south Manchester? Given the discussions that his Department has had with the GMPTE, can he advise me as to what powers he will look at providing it with specifically to tackle traffic congestion?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is as much in the interests of bus operators as of everybody else to ensure sensible management of the amount of traffic going through the streets of Manchester, as well as other places. That is why the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority is currently looking at the measures that it needs to take over the next five to 10 years to reduce the amount of traffic coming into the city and improve public transport. We are working closely together to achieve that. In terms of bus services, it will be possible to deliver such improvements only with the powers that will be necessary to ensure that buses are running where they are supposed to be running, as they should be if we are to persuade people that they should leave their cars at home. We discuss these matters not only with the Greater Manchester PTA, but with Stagecoach and other bus operators.

Adam Price: Does not the fact that bus usage in London since the mid-1980s has risen by almost 60 per cent., whereas in the rest of England and in Wales it has fallen by almost a half, show that the London model, which combines public planning on routes, fares and timetables with competition for specific contracts, has been a huge success, while deregulation has been a disaster?

Alistair Darling: The position varies across the country. The hon. Gentleman is right that London bus usage has increased dramatically, but he should bear in mind two things. First, the Mayor of London has deliberately introduced measures such as the congestion charge and others to encourage people to leave their cars at home. Furthermore, through the support of central Government, the Mayor is spending more than £400 million supporting those bus services. In other parts of the country, such as Brighton, York, Oxford and Cambridge, where bus companies and local authorities are working well together, there has also been an increase in bus patronage. What I have been referring to is further measures that are important and indeed necessary if we are to see an increase in the use of buses, particularly in larger conurbations such as Greater Manchester or in the west midlands, where I believe that we need to do more to reduce congestion on the roads and improve public transport. As I said in reply to the previous question, I am determined to ensure that we have a pilot for a national road pricing scheme, and improved public transport is an essential part of that.

Hugh Bayley: Local authorities spend a great deal of Government money seeking to increase bus use by designating bus lanes, building bus shelters, improving disabled access and traffic management systems and running information systems. However, that works well and increases bus use, which has happened in York, as my right hon. Friend said, only if there is a good partnership between the local authority and the bus company. Does he agree that it would be helpful if bus companies were to consult local authorities when they intend to raise fares or change timetables, rather than just inform them?

Alistair Darling: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. If public transport is to work, co-operation is needed with everyone who can make that possible. There really is no excuse for bus companies and local authorities not talking to each other.

Birmingham New Street Station

Richard Burden: What assessment he has made of the likely impact of developing Birmingham New Street station on the transport infrastructure of the west midlands.

Alistair Darling: Proposals for redeveloping the station are being worked up jointly by Birmingham city council and Network Rail.

Richard Burden: I am grateful for that reply. My right hon. Friend will be aware that New Street is the busiest interchange station in the UK, currently running at around twice its designed capacity. Given the fact that that is not only unacceptable from the point of view of its role as a gateway to the west midlands, but a problem for the national rail network, what support will he feel able to give to the scheme to which he has just referred, which involves all the local partners and has been developed in consultation with the Government office?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That station carries far more passengers than it was ever designed for, and it is essential not only for Birmingham and the west midlands but for many other routes that run through the area. On any view, there will have to be a substantial public contribution, which may involve the Department for Transport, the Department of Trade and Industry or others. I hope that we will have a proposal in the not-too-distant future, because everybody agrees that we need to spend a considerable sum of money to improve that part of the network.

Rob Marris: As someone who has used New Street station literally thousands of times and who will continue to do so, I fully support the redevelopment of New Street station. However, I urge my right hon. Friend to be careful in allocating development moneys to avoid an overblown plan for New Street station that will adversely affect other stations in the west midlands, including Wolverhampton.

Alistair Darling: When we replace stations, it is important that the replacement is sensible, and my hon. Friend is right that many railway proposals include more than is absolutely necessary. The site is complex and New Street station is extremely busy, so the development will almost certainly be tied to other development in Birmingham city centre, but I am confident that we will get something that is good for the railways as well as for Birmingham and the west midlands.

Robert Wilson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is puzzled that I have not called him, but the west midlands and Reading do not tie in, unless he can find a link.

Robert Wilson: Does the Secretary of State agree that any developments at Birmingham New Street station will benefit from the unblocking of the current bottleneck in the national network at Reading station? If so, what is he doing to help Reading out of that situation?

Alistair Darling: It is true that a train going to Birmingham that is held up at Reading will arrive in Birmingham later than it should—I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity. Reading is one of a number of stations where there are bottlenecks. Quite a lot of resignalling is needed at Reading, because the bottleneck affects services not only going up to Birmingham, but going down to the west country, and Network Rail is on the case.

Si�n Simon: May I call a spade a spade: given the hopeless dithering and chaotic failure to take a lead of the Tory-Liberal administration on Birmingham city council, I invite the Secretary of State to take a personal interest on behalf of the Labour Government, to take the matter by the scruff of the neck and to intervene to sort out the disgrace that is Birmingham New Street station? We should have a 21st-century station for a 21st-century city, but we cannot leave it to the Tories and the Liberals, because they cannot do it.

Alistair Darling: I assure my hon. Friend that I take a personal interest in the matter, not least because I am asked about it whenever I go to Birmingham. One big difference between now and the past is that we are prepared to put money into the railways, because many of the problems, whether they involve Birmingham or Reading, exist because the previous Government failed to do that.

British Transport Police

James Brokenshire: if he will make a statement on the proposed reorganisation of the British Transport police.

Alistair Darling: Last October, I told the House that I would review the role of the British Transport police, and I hope to announce the conclusions of that review before too long.

James Brokenshire: The review of the British Transport police comes at a sensitive time. As the Secretary of State knows, violent crime reported on the railways has increased by 40 per cent. in the past five years, and passengers in London are seriously concerned about safety because of unmanned stations and partially manned stations. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that passenger safety will be prioritised as part of the review, rather than the review being used to fit in with the Government's wider regionalisation agenda for police forces up and down the country?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right that what matters is providing effective police for the railwaysdespite its name, the British Transport police is essentially a railway police force. He is also right that we must ensure that the safety of passengers is paramount, which is why we have increased funding to the BTPthe number of officers has increased by about 300 in the past year alone, and more than 200 officers are due to be recruited in next three years. We have spent a lot more money on CCTV, and policing on London underground has been increased, too. It is important that the BTP focuses its efforts on tracking down the people who commit such crimes. We must ensure that people have the confidence to use the railways and the underground, and part of our review of the BTP is about making sure that policing is firmly focused on that objective.

Ann Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people responsible for the smooth running of our stations and trains have grave concerns regarding the possible demise of the British Transport police, with its very specialised experience?

Alistair Darling: Yes, the BTP does a very good job. We are having this review because, given the prospect of reducing the number of police forces in England and Wales, it makes sense to look at how the BTP is structured. It has to work very closely with police forces outside London because BTP officers tend to be more thinly spread in some areas and other forces need to help. In addition, the BTP is being asked to do an increasing amount of sophisticated work in relation to anti-terrorist activities in London, where it works with the Metropolitan police. The question that we are considering is whether it is best that it should remain as   the BTP[Hon. Members: Yes]or be firmly focused. I hope that the review will be completed fairly quickly. My hon. Friend is right to say that the BTP does a good job in different parts of the country, and its work is appreciated.

Stephen Hammond: Whichever version of the Government's 10-year transport plan one reads, it states:
	We want people to travel safely and feel secure.
	British Transport police statistics show a 43 per cent. increase in violent crime on trains since 19992000. Can the Minister confirm exactly when his review will be finished and what steps he will take as a result to ensure that people feel safer when travelling on our railways?

Alistair Darling: We will complete the review as soon as we can, but it is important to carry it out thoroughly to ensure that we get it right.
	It is true, as has been said, that the amount of reported crime has gone up. That is partly because all crimes are reported and recorded more accurately, but it is also the case, as the House will know, that there has been an increase in the amount of crime against individuals generally. We have increased the amount of officers and the amount of money available to spend on measures such as CCTVevery single penny of which, I must tell the hon. Gentleman, was opposed by the Conservatives at every opportunity. The House should be in no doubt that we are committed to doing everything that we possibly can to ensure that the railways are safe. The fact that increasing numbers of people are using the railways every year tends to suggest that the vast majority have confidence in the system. That said, there is clearly a lot more to be done in relation to the fight against crime, and we will ensure that British Transport police and other police forces have the resources they need to do that.

Eurostar

Chris Bryant: When he last reviewed security arrangements on Eurostar.

Stephen Ladyman: Security measures are in place that are designed to be proportionate and responsive to the prevailing level of threat. They have been jointly agreed with the French Government to ensure comparability of standards. The measures are kept under continuous review by both Governments.

Chris Bryant: I wonder whether the measures are proportionate. Someone who flies to Paris buys a ticket with their name on it, and before they get on the aeroplane the name on their ticket is checked against their passport at least three times. Someone who gets on Eurostar to go to Paris, Brussels, or wherever does not necessarily have a named ticket and all that is checked is whether they have a ticket. We therefore have no idea who is travelling on Eurostar. Should not we review that arrangement to ensure that our borders are secure?

Stephen Ladyman: The arrangements are very different as between Eurostar and the airlines. Airlines have named tickets because they must have a passenger manifest in case of an accident and because they must carry out a reconciliation between the hold baggage and the individuals on the plane. There is no hold baggage on Eurostar, and it is not necessary to have the same passenger manifest. Nevertheless, I have noted my hon. Friend's comments and will ensure that they are relayed to the people who keep security on Eurostar under review.

Light Transit Systems

Greg Mulholland: If he will make a statement on the future of funding for light rail and trams.

Derek Twigg: Trams can be very effective in heavily trafficked areas. We remain prepared to support the introduction of trams when they are the right solution, but we must take account of the cost. In many cases, a well-designed and promoted bus-based system is likely to provide a more cost-effective solution.

Greg Mulholland: The Under-Secretary's answer is as  enlightening as the Department's usual communications on light rail. In the light of the Government's decision not to fund the Leeds supertram scheme, and figures that show that three times as much money is spent per person on public transport in London and the south-east compared with Yorkshire and the Humber, does he agree that the Department is failing on public transport outside London, that the Government's regional economic policy is a sham and that all that shows an ever-increasing

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Under-Secretary.

Derek Twigg: The answer is no, we are not failing on public transport policy. Indeed, we are doing well. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should speak to his Front-Bench colleagues about getting Liberal Democrat policy on trams right. During a debate on 1 February, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said:
	All that needs to be underpinned by paying attention to value for money, which is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the London assembly are putting forward a proposal to replace the tram scheme for London with a trolleybus scheme that could do the same job for about a third of the price. [Official Report, 1 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 411.]

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked

E-government

Roberta Blackman-Woods: If he will make a statement on the progress of e-government.

Jim Murphy: The Government have made good progress on e-government, with 96 per cent. of services estimated to be online. Our flagship website, Directgov, has more than 2 million visitors a month. We have set a clear forward strategy for transformational government.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: What steps are the Department taking to ensure that the lessons of e-innovation rounds 1 and 2, as they relate to local government service improvement and accessibility, are being rolled out to all councils in the country, including those that serve my constituency?

Jim Murphy: First, may I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who, in the months that she has been a Member of Parliament, has taken a close interest in such matters, lobbied me and discussed how IT can help enable the transformation of people's lives in her constituency? She is right that IT crucially enables local government's delivery of public services and I believe that approximately 30 local authorities are involved in the initiative. Of course, we would like it to be rolled out much further so that best practice becomes common practice throughout the country.

Anne McIntosh: What investment has North Yorkshire county council made in e-government? Does the take-up reflect the investment?

Jim Murphy: I would assume that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) knew the position in North Yorkshire better than I do. Nevertheless, I can tell her that public services have been transformed and personalised throughout the country through changes in IT. In North Yorkshire, like the rest of the country, most of those services are highly effective and our constituents use them. For example, they may renew tax discs and pay tax online and visit Directgov. If the hon. Lady genuinely wishes to know the specific position in her constituency, I shall investigate and get back to her.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend correctly said that e-government services are widely available. However, the uptake varies greatly by region, age group and social grouping, as the publication Digital Strategy acknowledged a year ago. What progress has been made in bridging the digital divide and extracting the full potential of IT in delivering government?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that IT has the potential to bridge the divide, which, left unchecked, would grow. There are excellent examples of that improvement throughout the country. I visited Eastserve in Manchester, a project in the western isles and another on an oil platform in the North sea halfway to Norway. They are excellent innovations and examples of the delivery of public services to people, regardless of their background and age. However, I agree that much more can be done and many comments and ideas are contained in our transformational government strategy, which was published in November last year.

Deregulation

Henry Bellingham: What steps he is taking to enhance the Government's deregulatory initiatives.

Jim Murphy: We remain on track to deliver the radical programme of regulatory reform set out in the March 2005 Budget and the better regulation action plan published in May 2005. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill will make it quicker and easier to reform outdated, unnecessary or over-complicated legislation.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that one of the most regulatory measures around is the temporary agency workers directive, which the CBI has described as a job destroyer? It would certainly damage employment in my constituency. Labour MEPs are in favour of the directive. Are Her Majesty's Government still totally opposed to it?

Jim Murphy: The United Kingdom Government support any initiative that manages to protect the competitiveness of UK business and the UK economy, so our position has not changed on this matter. We have heard these siren calls before, not from the CBI but from the Conservatives. It was of course the Conservatives who said that the national minimum wage would cost 1 million jobs and be bad for British business. The fact is that nearly 2 million more people are now in employment. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the position of the UK Government has not changed.

Andrew Miller: May I thank my hon. Friend for acknowledging the reason for my absence from last week's debate on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill? I was attending an important funeral. May I ask him specifically when he expects to be able to reply to the substantive points made on the Bill by the Regulatory Reform Select Committee?

Jim Murphy: The whole House accepted the reason why my hon. Friend could not attend last Thursday's Second Reading debate. May I again put on record the thanks of the whole House for the work that he and his Regulatory Reform Committee have done on this important issue? I confirmed on Second Reading that we would respond to  the Committee's 17 specific and substantial recommendations before the Bill went into Standing Committee. I repeat that we remain open and sensitive to ways to offer further reassurances on the Bill.

John Bercow: Given the Minister's responsibility for deregulatory initiatives, and the merits of learning from successful experience in other countries, what assessment has he made of the merits of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996 in the United States?

Jim Murphy: As usual, the hon. Gentleman's questions are very precise. I am not in a position to provide the specific information that he requests, but I can confirm that, in regard to the Government's better regulation agenda, we are looking at experiences across the world, especially of administrative burdens. We are learning from the Dutch, the Danes and others who match our aspirations and ambitions on better regulation. Importantly, we shall know that we have succeededas we are beginning to do nowwhen other countries look at our example. I met some colleagues from the new German Government recently, and they are looking to us for ways in which to advance their own better regulation agenda to help their economy.

Keith Vaz: Clearly, this was one of the key matters pursued by the Government under the UK presidency. What meetings did my hon. Friend have with his European Union colleagues to ensure that regulatory reform was not just limited to one country but applied to the rest of the European Union as part of our ongoing agenda to make the European Union more competitive?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend's analysis is correct. If the UK and the European Union are to succeed in the global economy, given the challenges from China and India, our ambitions for better regulation need to be much more robust. We hosted a conference in Edinburgh for regulatory reform Ministers from throughout the EU to further that agenda, and to determine how we could learn together from our best experiences in order successfully to create the dynamic European economy that we all wish to see.

Oliver Heald: The Department of Trade and Industry has recently published its list of forthcoming regulations to be made this year. It runs to a whopping 30 pages, and that is just the list. The Minister has said that he favours the principle of one in, one out. That is, for every new regulation, an old one should be scrapped. So why has not he, as the Cabinet Office Minister charged with responsibility for deregulation, published a list of the regulations to be scrapped? Or is he content that there is now 40 billion-worth more regulation than there was in 1997 and that it is rising fast? What is he going to do about that?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman has limited ambitions if all that he seeks to do is ensure that the DTI will publish simplification proposals and deliver on them. Not just the DTI but every Department is committed to publishing its simplification proposals by the time of the pre-Budget report, and the Bill will allow their implementation.
	Labour Members make no apology for well-targeted, effective regulation that delivers protection for families, helps the working poor and protects our environment. It is a shame that the Conservative party has not yet flip-flopped on all those issues.

John Hemming: Does the Minister not agree that the reason the Government have failed so dismally on regulatory reform is that regulatory reform orders are initiated by Ministers? Ministers do not wish to reduce their powers; they generally act to increase them. If we are to succeed in reducing regulation, we need orders to be initiated from outwith the ministerial structure.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman plays an important part in the work of the Regulatory Reform Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). I assume that he has signed up to the Committee's report and its 17 recommendations. The Government are minded to adopt many of those recommendations. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring specific matters to the Government's attention I shall be happy to listen, but I do not recognise the economic picture that he portrays. We have the lowest interest rates, the lowest unemployment and record levels of employment in our dynamic economy, but we must do more, and our agenda will help us to achieve that.

Point of Order

Hugh Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice in your capacity as guardian of the rights and privileges of the House, as I believe that the House may have been misled.
	On 12 January, in a point of order from this Dispatch Box, I drew attention to an inconsistency. The answer to a written parliamentary question that I had received on that date stated that UK Sport had not
	set an aspirational target for Olympic medals in . . . 2012.[Official Report, 12 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 783W.]
	That was inconsistent with remarks to the contrary in UK Sport's annual report. You replied, Mr. Speaker, that if that answer was incorrect, it should be corrected by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
	I wrote to the Secretary of State immediately after your remarks, Mr. Speaker. I have yet to receive an answer. I also issued a freedom of information request for the documents relating to the issue. I received a reply this morning. It denied me access to those documents; however, owing to a mistake by a civil servant, the document that I sought was included in the reply. The summary statessome of it is in bold type
	UK Sport's ultimate goal, in consultations with BOA
	that is, the British Olympic Association
	and our other partners, is to finish 4th in the 2012 Olympic medal table, finishing as top European nation.
	There is clearly a massive inconsistency between that and the Minister's statement that UK Sport had not set an aspirational target for Olympic medals in 2012. You can see why I believe that the House has been misled, Mr. Speaker.
	I have now raised the matter twice on points of order, and have received no response from the Department. I have written to the Secretary of State; she has not yet had the courtesy to reply to the letter. What further action can I take?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will recall that when he raised the matter on a point of order, I said to him Keep asking questions. He got a reply, even if it was a mistake, and I am sure that now that the House has heard what he said, the Minister will reply. I have no doubt of that.

Eric Forth: It does not happen.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman says that it does not happen. I cannot instruct Ministers, but the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) should get a reply, and he will get a reply. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is happy with that.

Disabled Children's Assessment and Services

Edward Balls: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the assessment of disabled children's needs; to amend the law relating to children; to place duties on local authorities and the National Health Service in respect of disabled children and their carers; and for connected purposes.
	In Britain today, there are some 770,000 disabled children7 per cent. of all the children in our country. Despite medical advances, the prevalence of disability is increasing. Since 1975, there has been a 62 per cent. increase in the number of disabled children. At this point, I want to pay tribute to the many thousands of parents, carers and teachers of children with severe learning disabilities, who work tirelessly day in, day out to give children in their care all the opportunities, love and support that they need and deserve.
	One test of a civilised society is how it supports the families in greatest need. We know that disabled children and young people face multiple barriers to achieving their potential, or to sharing similar life chances to everyone else. We know, too, that severe disabilities place great burdens on families and close friends. Surveys show that it costs three times as much to bring up a disabled child, while for many parents the barriers to work are insurmountable. More than half of disabled children in Britain today live in poverty.
	Successive Governments have recognised our obligations to these families. The Government's recent report, Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People, which was masterminded by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), set out the overarching children's policy framework and how it has evolved in recent decades: from the Children Act 1989, to the Every Child Matters Green Paper and the subsequent Children Act 2004. That report highlights how the Government are doing more to support disabled children and their families through measures such as extra cash help in the form of the child tax credit, a network of special educational needs co-ordinators, and section 8 of the national service framework for children. But we know that there is still a long way to go.
	Last December, I met the parents and teachers of Kingsland school in Stanley, in my constituency, to where younger children with severe and profound learning difficulties come from across the Wakefield district. Kingsland is truly a brilliant school. Highly praised by Government inspectors, it is the first special school in my district to receive the primary basic skills quality mark. As I have seen, the children have a great time every day, especially at lunchtime. But when I talked to a group of parents and teachers, I heard first hand how tough life can be. Head teacher Nitsa Wainwright explained to me how difficult the school finds it to access services such as speech therapy or physiotherapy outside the school term.
	Parents' biggest concern is the lack of reliable respite care. They described to me the great stress that both parents and siblings endure, especially during the holidays, when there is no school and such families are caring for severely disabled children 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They told me how much they value the chance of an occasional breakto go to the pub or on a trip to meet friendsand they explained how much more difficult life becomes when, as happens too often, their respite care is delayed, curtailed or cancelled because of staff shortages or problems with transport. These parents need more support, and I have been in contact with my local authority and primary care trust to represent their concerns. There is a real will in our district to make things better.
	I have also discovered that these families are not alone in their struggle. Contact a Family and Mencap tell me that thousands of parents across the country face similar problems. In Britain today, 3,000 children are on waiting lists for family-based short breaks; three out of 10 children wait more than a year for such a break; and six out of 10 of those in greatest need get no, or very few, breaks. It is no wonder that, according to a Mencap survey, eight out of 10 families with disabled children are at breaking point. Margaret Sparks, a school governor of Kingsland school, told me of her and her husband's huge struggle to get proper respite care for their daughter, Kathryn. As one parent said to me:
	Most of the time the organisational challenge of getting out together as a family can be too great and it's just too difficult. At least with respite care you have the hope of a chance of being able to go out and be a normal family and enjoy things like cinema or swimming which many people just take for granted. For us, respite care means the difference between doing normal things like this and actually cracking up as a family.
	My Bill aims to improve the services for families such as the ones whom I met in my constituency. It is supported by Contact a Family, the Council for Disabled Children, Mencap and the Special Educational Consortium, which have been working together for several years to raise awareness of the issues that the Bill addresses. It is also supported by a number of backers and supporters from all parts of the House, many of whom have campaigned for years for a better deal for disabled children and their parents. They include Members such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), who introduced disabled persons legislation in 1986, and who is chairman of the all-party group on learning disability.
	I also wish to pay tribute to the late Rachel Squire, the former Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, who was a patron of Contact a Family and a tireless campaigner on behalf of carers and disabled children and adults. She will be sadly missed.
	My Bill proposes three important changes that would improve the rights of disabled children and their families. First, it seeks to make clear in law for the first time that local authorities must assess disabled children and provide them with a range of services where those are assessed as necessary. Our research has shown that there is no duty to assess disabled children under the Children Act 1989 equivalent to that in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, although that duty has been implied in case law and policy guidance.
	The Bill would give disabled children the right to a local authority assessment and to receive services. It would do so by proposing amendments to section 17 of the Children Act 1989, and by drawing directly on a previous and pioneering private Member's Bill, which became the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. I am sure that the whole House joins me in paying tribute to the work of Alf Morris, now Lord Morris, whose work radically improved the life chances of disabled people in our country.
	Secondly, my Bill would give disabled children and their families an explicit right to short breaks and respite care. Under the community care regime, adult social service authorities are obliged to provide disabled adults with short breaks where the authority has assessed that such a need exists. However, no such obligation exists at present under the Children Act 1989. If enacted, the Bill would therefore empower parents in coming forward to ask for assessments and for the services and respite care they badly need.
	Thirdly, my Bill would also require NHS bodies to work co-operatively with local authorities to promote the health and welfare of disabled children in England and Wales, and enhance the delivery of services such as speech and language therapy.
	I know from my discussions with Ministers that they support the objectives of my Bill. I know that they intend to study its provisions in detail to see how and if it can be taken forward. I know, too, that Ministers are committed to using every lever at their disposal to deliver our manifesto commitment to
	ensure that services are designed to meet the additional needs of disabled children and their families.
	I look forward to further discussions and, in the forthcoming spending review, I hope that the Government can bring forward a cross-cutting public service agreement for disabled children, which can match resources with greater co-ordination between local authorities and the NHS to deliver, for families with disabled children, the care and support they badly need.
	I hope that we can make progress in giving parents with disabled children enhanced supportbuilding on what has already been doneso that every child in our country has the best start in life. Parents of children at Kingsland School told me that they need more support. I hope that my Bill can make it happen, and I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to present it today.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Ed Balls, Liz Blackman, Mr. Tom Clarke, Annette Brooke, Peter Bottomley, Mr. Iain Wright, Mr. Jamie Reed, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Brooks Newmark, Helen Goodman, Tim Loughton and Paul Burstow.

Disabled Children's Assessment and Services

Ed Balls accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about the assessment of disabled children's needs; to amend the law relating to children; to place duties on local authorities and the National Health Service in respect of disabled children and their carers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 May, and to be printed [Bill 128].

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance, because I hope that the House will be able to divide on amendment No. 8 to the Health Bill. I say that for two reasons. First, I believe that the House should be given an opportunity to vote for the status quo, and my amendment would provide the only chance to do so. Secondly, if the House cannot vote on my amendment, some of us might be obliged to vote against the Bill on Third Reading, which would be most unfortunate, because it would mean a confusion between the smoking elements in part 1 and the rest of the Bill, which isI have no doubtadmirable. I hope that you will give consideration to allowing a division on amendment No.   8, so that the House may take a distinct and separate view on that part of the Bill.

Laurence Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I endorse the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). You will note, Mr. Speaker, that my amendment No. 36 accepts that some places may be deemed smoke-free but that licensed premises would not be smoke-free and thus not caught by the legislation. Is it your intention to allow a vote on that amendment too, if we get to that point?

Mr. Speaker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr.   Forth) that the key is new clause 5. I am not encouraging either Member to do this, but they would be advised to vote against the new clause, because if it is carried their amendments fall. Procedurally, that is the position[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst may be displeased but I can only tell him that that is the procedure. If new clause 5 is carried, the amendment mentioned in his point of order will fall.

Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does the same apply to amendment No. 6, in my name, which deals with the important issue of whether people should be allowed to smoke in their private motor vehicles?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair will take a view, after listening to the debate.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your help in ensuring that Members do not have the procedure of the House of Commons explained to them too clearly, because it will completely confuse them and they might actually use their own opinion to decide how to vote.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady should worry about whether she is confused.

Health Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Patricia Hewitt: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 29th November 2005 (Health Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1.   Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2.   Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
	3.   The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		TABLE
		
			  
			   Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1 and to the age for sale of tobacco, and amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 12 and Schedules 1 and 2. Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order. 
			 Remaining proceedings on consideration. One hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced. 
		
	
	4.   Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
	I am delighted that we have reached the Health Bill's final stages in this place. The Bill had 12 constructive sessions in Committee, just over six of which were devoted to the smoke-free provisions, with the remaining time spent discussing other important parts of the Bill. With no programming at all, I was delighted that the Committee managed to discuss all the Bill's main provisions. I was even more pleased that there were only two Divisions during Committee, a reflection of the fact that this is a very good Bill indeed.
	As time is more precious on Report, we decided to programme the proceedings, but only lightly. Although the smoke-free provisions are clearly an important part of the Bill, and have generated much interest, the measure contains many other significant provisions. Few amendments have been tabled in relation to other parts of the Bill, but there are amendments on the important provisions on infection control in part 2, and it is right that they should receive a hearing. We have thus proposed a generous three hours in which to conclude our discussions on the first two groups of amendments, which relate to smoking, after which we shall move through the remaining amendments. That is a sensible allocation of time and I hope that Opposition parties will not delay the start of what promises to be a lively debate.

Steve Webb: As time discussing the programme motion is time taken from the substantive issue, I shall not detain the House. However, I want to make one point.
	In the three hours available, we are discussing two groups of amendmentsthose relating to the smoking ban and the completely separate provisions about the position of 16 to 18-year olds. As the first group is obviously contentious, with a wide range of related issues, it seems extremely likely that the whole three hours will be taken up by discussion of the smoking ban, which means that the provisions on 16 to 18-year-olds will not be debated at all, although I am aware that there was a short debate in Committee. Furthermore, as there is a Government new clause it will be voted on, even though it will not have been debated.
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that even if we do not debate the new clause she will force a vote on it? She is nodding, so she must be happy for us to change the position for 16 to 18-year olds without debate in the House. It will thus seem that not enough time was available, but in fact the Government could have given us more than one day on Report. The Pensions Bill had three days on Report. If these important issues cannot be properly debated because there is not enough time this afternoon, the Government should allocate extra time and not make a quite major change without any debate. For that reason, I regard the programme motion as unsatisfactory.
	Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	  
	Health Bill

[Relevant documents: Sixth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 200506, on Legislative Scrutiny: Third Progress Report, HC 787; Eleventh Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 200506, on Legislative Scrutiny: Fifth Progress Report, HC 899; First Report from the Health Committee, Session 200506, on Smoking in Public Places, HC 485-I.]
	As amended in the Standing Committee, considered

New Clause 5
	  
	Smoke-free premises: exemptions

'(1)   The appropriate national authority may make regulations providing for specified descriptions of premises, or specified areas within specified descriptions of premises, not to be smoke-free despite section 2.
	(2)   Descriptions of premises which may be specified under subsection (1) include, in particular
	(a)   any premises where a person has his home, or is living whether permanently or temporarily (including hotels, care homes, and prisons and other places where a person may be detained),
	(b)   except as mentioned in subsection (5), any premises in respect of which a club premises certificate (within the meaning of section 60 of the Licensing Act 2003 (c. 17)) has effect.
	(3)   The power to make regulations under subsection (1) is not exercisable so as to specify any description of premises in respect of which a premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (c. 17) authorising the consumption of alcohol on the premises has effect.
	(4)   But subsection (3) does not prevent the exercise of that power so as to specify any area, within a specified description of premises mentioned in subsection (3), where a person has his home, or is living whether permanently or temporarily.
	(5)   If both a club premises certificate and a premises licence authorising the consumption of alcohol on the premises have effect in respect of any premises, those premises are to be treated for the purposes of this section as if only the premises licence had effect in respect of them.
	(6)   The regulations may provide, in relation to any description of premises or areas of premises specified in the regulations, that the premises or areas are not smoke-free
	(a)   in specified circumstances,
	(b)   if specified conditions are satisfied, or
	(c)   at specified times,
	or any combination of those.
	(7)   The conditions may include conditions requiring the designation in accordance with the regulations, by the person in charge of the premises, of any rooms in which smoking is to be permitted.'.[Ms Hewitt.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Patricia Hewitt: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a), in line 9, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment (j), in line 11, at end insert
	'(c)   premises of specialist tobacconists, as defined in section 6 of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 (c. 36).'.
	Amendment (b), in line 13, after first 'of' insert '(a)'.
	Amendment (c), in line 15, at end insert
	'(b)   premises in respect of which a club premises certificate (within the meaning of section 60 of that Act) has effect.'.
	Amendment (d), in line 19, leave out subsection (5).
	Amendment (i), in line 29, at end insert
	'(   )   Regulations made under subsection (1) shall not provide for premises or areas of premises in respect of which a club premises certificate has effect if they are premises or areas of premises open to the public to which children have access.'.
	Amendment (g), in line 30, after second 'conditions', insert '(a)'.
	Amendment (h), in line 32, at end add
	'(b)   requiring the physical segregation of rooms where smoking is permitted from those where it is not;
	(c)   stipulating what food or drink may be consumed in any rooms where smoking is permitted; and
	(d)   requiring all staff who enter such rooms to do so only on a voluntary basis.'.
	Amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 1, leave out clauses 1 to 12.
	Government amendments Nos. 18 and 19.
	Amendment No. 36, in page 2, line 31 [Clause 3], leave out subsections (1) to (4) and insert
	'( )   Despite section 2, the following descriptions of premises, may not be smoke-free
	(a)   premises where a person has his home, or is living whether permanently or temporarily;
	(b)   licensed premises;
	(c)   premises in respect of which a club premises certificate is in force.'.
	Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 33 [Clause 3], at end insert
	'(1A)   The regulations may provide for local authorities to licence designated rooms in which smoking is to be permitted under appropriate conditions.'.
	Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 37 [Clause 3], leave out from 'hotels' to end of line 38 and insert
	'and care homes, but not including prisons)'.
	Amendment No. 27, in page 2, line 38 [Clause 3], at end insert
	'(   )   premises in respect of which there are designated areas in which smoking is to be permitted.'.
	Amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 3 [Clause 5], at end insert
	'(c)   any private motor vehicle not available for hire or reward.
	(d)   any occupant of a private motor vehicle not available for hire or reward.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 20 and 24.
	Government motion, That clause 8 be transferred to end of line 38 on page 6.
	Government amendment No. 21

Patricia Hewitt: I am sure that, before we begin the debate, the whole House will join me in congratulating the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on the birth of his third baby. We all wish him well, both as a parent and, of course, in his efforts to give up smoking.
	The Bill will ban smoking in virtually every enclosed public place and workplace in England. As the director of Action on Smoking and Health said:
	This Bill will be a big step forwards for public health. If passed into law, it will save thousands of lives every year, as vulnerable people are no longer exposed to dangerous second-hand smoke at work, and as thousands of smokers are encouraged to cut down or quit altogether.
	The medical evidence is absolutely clearsmoking is the principal avoidable cause of premature death. Almost 85,000 people die every year from lung cancer, respiratory illnesses and heart disease. We have acted to deal with that scourge. We have already banned tobacco advertising, strengthened health warnings on cigarette packets and introduced NHS stop-smoking programmes, which in 200405 alone have helped nearly 300,000 people to give up smoking.
	Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), launched our latest anti-smoking television and radio campaign. Now, with this Bill, we will ensure that from the summer of next year18 months earlier than we originally proposedsmoke-free workplaces and public places will become the norm. Over time, we estimate that an additional 600,000 people will give up smoking as a result of this law and that millions more will be protected from second-hand smoke.

Patrick Hall: The public health case to make all workplaces smoke-free is very well established. Leaving aside the fact that many already are smoke-free, would it not boost the credibility of the House if the standards that we seek to impose on others were applied to ourselves?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, that is a matter for the House authorities, rather than for the Government, but I believe that I am right in saying that several of the bars in the Palace of Westminster have already decided to go smoke-free, and I hope that others will follow. However, as I say, that is a matter for the House, not for me as a Minister.

John Hemming: I hope to refer later to licensed smoking areas. We effectively have a licensed smoking area in the Committee Corridor. Should we not be doing something similar nationwide?

Patricia Hewitt: As I have already indicated, the arrangements that we make in the Palace of Westminster are matters for the House, not for the Government, nor for the Bill.

Ian Gibson: Is my right hon. Friend astonished that a prominent Opposition Member who extols tobacco smoking across the world and makes a tidy sum from the products of that industry is not present today?

Patricia Hewitt: I do indeed share my hon. Friend's surprise at that. All Labour Members believe that it is right to legislate to ban smoking in the vast majority of workplaces and public places, and I welcome the fact that at least someperhaps manyOpposition Members now agree with us. However, there are different views inside and outside the House on exactly how far smoke-free legislation should extend and on where the balance should be struck between protecting people from harm and protecting people's freedom of choice.

Howard Stoate: My right hon. Friend is right to say that a balance must be struck, but does she agree that the most important thing is to protect all workers in bars, whether food is served in them or not, and to protect the whole public, whether they are smokers or not? Therefore, we should give people the opportunity to be able to eat and drink in a non-smoky atmosphere. Those who wish to smoke can always do so outside.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I shall come to those precise issues in just a moment.
	As I was saying, there are different views on exactly where the balance should be struck. I am particularly grateful to the Select Committee on Health, led so capably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), which has made a very important contribution to the debate. The Government have therefore introduced amendments to the Bill to enable the House to express its view on exactly how the balance should be struck.

John Redwood: Can the Secretary of State explain the difference between a worker in a normal place of employment, a worker who goes to carry out a job in a private home where there are smokers, and a worker who goes into a club to carry out a job?

Patricia Hewitt: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is saying that there should be a smoking ban in people's own homes or whether he is saying that there should not be a smoking ban at all. No doubt, he will make his views clear in the debate. However, his question reflects the confusion that we know exists among Conservative Members.
	New clause 5 replaces the existing clause 3 of the Bill.

Andrew Turner: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Patricia Hewitt: Let me make a little progress before I give way again.
	The new clause provides a general power to make exemptions from the smoking ban. This is necessary to exempt from the ban people's own homes and places that are, in effect, someone's home, at least temporarilyin other words, long-term adult residential care homes, hospitals and mental health hospitals for adults, prisons and hotel bedrooms. We are taking the power to make the limited exemptions not only because we believe that it is right in principle, but to fulfil our obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 on respect for private life.

Christopher Chope: If it is wrong for prisoners to be able to drink alcohol in prison, why is it right under the Government's legislation for them to be able to smoke?

Patricia Hewitt: We believe that it is right for prisoners, who quite properly have no choice about where they live, to be able to exercise choice in the matter of smoking within appropriate restrictions. My Department and the Home Office are discussing with the prison authorities precisely the nature of the limited exemption that should apply in prisons.

Jeremy Browne: I do not understand the Secretary of State's answer to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). If the purpose of the Bill is to protect people in the workplace, why are au pairs and other people who work in homes not protected under it? That is a straightforward question that deserves a straightforward answer.

Patricia Hewitt: I note that the manifesto policy of the Liberal party is for a total ban. That is not, of course, the policy of most of the contenders for the leadership of the hon. Gentleman's party. I do not believe, and nor do Labour Members, that it would be right to legislate to ban people from smoking in their own homes.

Tony Wright: Under new clause 5(7), would it be possible to have designated smoking rooms in all kinds of premises by regulation?

Patricia Hewitt: No, it would not. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point but, as I shall explain in a moment, new clause 5 provides only quite limited powers to make exceptions to the general ban on smoking in enclosed public places that we have introduced in the Bill.

Andrew Lansley: Just so we are absolutely clear about what the Secretary of State is now proposing, as opposed to what she outlined on Second Reading, will she confirm that new clause 5 would not only prevent the designation of smoking roomsalthough the original proposals would have allowed that, and she said on Second Reading that the Government would consult on the matterbut not permit pubs that did not serve prepared food along with drink to be exempt? Is it not the case that as distinct from when she gave evidence to the Health Committee, she has expressly moved away from the manifesto position that she extolled on Second Reading?

Patricia Hewitt: As I shall explain, new clause 5 is expressly designed to include under the smoking ban all pubs and licensed premises, including those that do not serve food. The details of the limited range of exemptions for long-term residential homes, hospices, mental health hospitals for adults and so on will be consulted on and set out in regulations. All such regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

David Taylor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. Would she consider it unjust, or merely ironic, if the 120 or so Members who have been returned from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were to vote for the weaker framework to protect our employees in pubs and clubs in England and thus impose on the 520 or so English Members weaker protection in every sense? Surely that would be not only ironic, but unjust.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes his point and I am sure that he will develop it during the course of the debate.

David Clelland: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Patricia Hewitt: I will make a little more progress before I take further interventions.
	We have begun to explore two controversial issues. There is the question of whether all pubs and licensed premises should be covered by the smoking ban, or whether, as we originally proposed, those that do not serve food should be exempt. Unlike clause 3, new clause 5 would not allow any exemption to be made for licensed premises. In other words, all pubs, bars, discos and night clubs, including those that do not serve food, would be entirely smoke-free. It is right to have a complete ban on smoking in public places, including all licensed premises, so I hope that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will join me in voting for new clause 5.

Andrew Lansley: Will the Secretary of State explain whether she thought the opposite on Second Reading on 29 November? Did she believe at the time that it was right to exempt pubs that did not serve food? Who in the Government believed that the policy that she presented to the House then was the right approach?

Patricia Hewitt: I said on Second Reading that I was delighted to be bringing forward a Bill that is an enormous step forward for public health, regardless of the question of non-food-serving pubs. As I indicated, the issue is how we strike the right balance between protecting people from harm on the one hand and protecting people's freedom of choice on the other. One such balance is reflected in clause 3, but I and many of my hon. Friends believe that it would be better to achieve the balance of imposing a smoking ban on all licensed premises, regardless of whether they serve food.

Laurence Robertson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that a mass murderer in prison will be able to exercise his right to have a cigarette, even though prison staff will inhale his smoke, yet law-abiding people who go into pubs will not be able to do so?

Patricia Hewitt: As I have already indicated, we are working with the Home Office on the precise nature of the limited exemption that should be permitted for prisoners. The regulations on prisons and other matters will come before the House. If the hon. Gentleman takes the view[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must allow the Secretary of State to be heard.

Patricia Hewitt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) believes that there should not be an exemption for prisons, he is perfectly entitled to take that view and he can vote against the regulations when we introduce them.

Quentin Davies: The Secretary of State is quite right to listen to the consultation and to propose to amend the original Second Reading formulation. However, new clause 5 contains a potential anomaly, as it says:
	The appropriate national authority may make regulations
	to provide for exemptions. Theoretically, if the Bill is enacted and comes into force before the national authority makes those regulations the absurd prospect arises that it would be illegal to smoke in one's own home. Can the Secretary of State assure us that she will make sure that those regulations are made in time to prevent that anomaly from arising?

Patricia Hewitt: Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courteous remarks.
	The second issue on which there are genuine differences of opinion both inside and outside the House is that of private membership clubs. Government new clause 5 would exempt genuine private membership clubs from the ban. To allow hon. Members to express their views on that issue separately from the question of licensed premises generally my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has tabled amendments (a) and (b) to (d) to the new clause. Those amendments, taken together, would not allow any exemption to be made for private clubsin other words, the smoking ban would extend to them as well. By membership clubs we mean only the qualifying clubs operating with a club premises certificate under the specific rules of the Licensing Act 2003, including the stipulation that the club is not open to the general public and that it is run on a not-for-profit basis.

Steve Webb: The Secretary of State pointed out that for procedural reasons her ministerial colleague has tabled amendments to the new clause. She will have talked to her colleagues about their intentions this evening so, lest the House is confused and thinks that there is division between Ministers, can she confirm that all the Ministers in her Department will vote in the same way on these issues?

Patricia Hewitt: I strongly advise the hon. Gentleman to talk to the candidates for the leadership of his own party. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said:
	Personally, I won't be voting for the smoking ban.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) said that it is entirely sensible to make some places available for people to smoke in. However, he also thought that we should not necessarily extend the ban to private clubs. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), when he was a candidate for the leadership, said:
	A lot of my colleagues would support a ban on smoking
	indeed, his manifesto said so
	but as a liberal I'm uncomfortable with that.
	It appears to be only the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) among the Liberal leadership candidates who supports his party manifesto on the subject.

Robert Wareing: Would my right hon. Friend clarify the question of private membership clubs? If, in fact, they are exempt under the Bill, would it be possible for such a club to have a small bar on the premises, where drink would be allowed and smoking would be permitted?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point and I will come to it in a moment.
	There are about 18,500 registered membership clubs in England, representing a wide range of interests. There are working men's clubs, political clubs, military and sporting clubs and so on. I believe that the arguments on membership clubs are very finely balanced. On the one hand, there is a case for making even more places smoke-free and establishing a level playing field for pubs, licensed premises and membership clubs. On the other, there is the case, strongly put to me by many of my own constituents, that a genuinely private membership club that is not for profit and is effectively owned and run by the members themselves should be treated in the same way as people's own homes, where people decide for themselves. I believe that that is a very strong argument, but I will listen to the debate extremely carefully, and on this point in particular.

Andrew Selous: Is it the case that there are no fewer than 165,000 workers who work in the private members' clubs that would be exempted under new clause 5?

Patricia Hewitt: Let me make it clear that if Parliament should decide to exempt private members' clubs, the regulations that followwhich will be subject, as I said, to the affirmative resolution procedurewill require members to have an annual vote on the smoking issue, and in order to fulfil our manifesto commitment to protect employees even in those exempt premises, smoking will be banned in the bar. Furthermore, we will review those and other provisions of the new law within three years.

David Clelland: As my right hon. Friend knows, I have added my name to her new clause 5. However, I am a little concerned about what she has just said. I heard her say the same thing on the radio this morning. When she says that smoking will permitted in the bar, does she mean any room with a bar or just the main bar of the club? Will she clarify that?

Patricia Hewitt: What I have just said to the House, and what I said this morning, is that even if membership clubs are exempt following the vote in the House and the final decision of Parliament on that point, in the regulations we will ensure that smoking cannot take place in the bar itself. We will want to consult widely on the precise details of the regulations, and those will come to Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedure.

Jim Devine: Is this not a simple health and safety issue? Passive smoking kills. Full stop. It does not matter whether it takes place in private members clubs or in public bars. Is that not the case?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. It is also the case that about 95 per cent. of the deaths that result from passive smoking occur as a result of passive smoking in people's homes, not in public places or in membership clubs.

Doug Henderson: Further to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) and the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) about workers in private clubs, can my right hon. Friend confirm that all workplace health and safety legislation will still apply in private clubs, that workers compensation legislation will still apply in private clubs, and that all those requirements will be the responsibility of the private club, regardless of what happens in the House today?

Patricia Hewitt: Of course. Health and safety legislation is not affected by the Bill.

Patrick Cormack: I intend to vote for private clubs to have the freedom proposed. Does the right hon. Lady intend to do the same?

Patricia Hewitt: As I have already said, I think that the arguments are extremely finely balanced. In the spirit of the free vote that we on the Government Benches will have, I intend to listen to the debate very carefully.
	If both the amendments and the new clause are passed, the smoking ban will cover all public places and workplaces, including all licensed premises and private membership clubs. Only a few specific exemptions will be made, mainly for places that are essentially a person's home or personal space. If the amendments fall but the new clause is passed unamended, the smoking ban will cover all public places and workplaces, including licensed premises, but not genuine private members' clubs. If the new clause falls, the smoke-free provisions that are set out in the current draft of the Bill will remainin other words, in that situation we will introduce regulations to exempt both membership clubs and licensed premises that do not prepare and serve food.
	I stress that in order to fulfil the promises that we made to the public in our manifesto, the Government are not prepared to accept any smoke-free provisions that are less comprehensive than those set out in the Bill when it was first published. I wish that there was similar clarity on the Conservative Benches, where the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who speaks on health, said 10 months ago that he favoured self-regulation and opposed a ban, but has I think now decided that he supports a banno doubt he will tell uswhile the leader of the Conservative party continues to say that he opposes a ban, unless, of course, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is going to tell us that there has been a further flip-flop since this morning.
	Whatever the outcome of the votes on these two specific issues, this Bill marks a huge step forward for public health. It will make smoke-free the norm. It will protect non-smokers from passive smoking, make it easier for smokers to give up and save thousands of people's lives. I look forward to a fruitful debate and to hon. Members making their views known on exactly how far the smoke-free legislation should extend. I commend new clause 5 to the House.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise just for clarification, which we did not get from the Secretary of State. She has just commended new clause 5 to the House. There is, of course, a rule in the House that the voice and the vote must go together, so do we infer from that that she will indeed vote for new clause 5?

Mr. Speaker: I am reliably informed that that is what the right hon. Lady would shout, because she has recommended the new clause. [Interruption.] Order. This is a confusing day, so let us not push our luck.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the Secretary of State has added very little to the clarity, so let us see where we get to.
	I should like to give the Secretary of State our thanks for the kind remarks that she directed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and to Samantha. Opposition Members are delighted at the safe arrival of a baby boy for Samantha and David at St. Mary's, Paddington, this morning. If I may, I shall trespass a moment and also express our good wishes to the family of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and their baby boy; to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands), who has a baby girl; and, in expectation, to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies). Opposition Members are doing our bit to defuse the demographic time bomb.

David Taylor: They are all in labour wards.

Andrew Lansley: Better than the Labour party.
	I am sure that the House is pleased to see the Secretary of State here after her indisposition last week, although I think that she might have preferred to be diplomatically ill today. As I said on Second Reading, I believe that the Bill can contribute to a significant reduction in smoking. On Second Reading, the House resolved to achieve that reduction by means of a legislative ban. We did indeed debate on Second Reading and in Committee the question of whether it could be achieved on a self-regulatory basis. Of course, there is evidence of a significant increase in the number of smoke-free places that are being established without legislation being enforced, but the issue before us today is in practice not whether we should have a ban, but what its extent should be.
	Let me be clear: smoking kills and it remains the largest cause of avoidable deaths in this country, and that mortality includes several thousand people each year who we believe die as a consequence of exposure to second-hand smoke. The greatest element of that problem is exposure to second-hand smoke in the home, to which the Secretary of State referred. The figures were clearly set out in November 2004 in the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health report: there is a 24 per cent. increase in the risk of developing lung cancer for non-smoking women whose partners are smoking men; there is a 37 per cent. increase in the risk of developing lung cancer for non-smoking men whose partners are smoking women; and there is a 19 per cent. increase in the risk of developing lung cancer for those who are exposed to passive smoke in the workplace.
	The risk of lung cancer is well understood; the risk of cardiovascular disease is less well understood, but arguably much more significant. The risk of developing lung cancer increases in direct proportion to the number of cigarettes smoked and the duration of smoking. Damage to the heart and arteries, however, seems to occur disproportionately at lower exposures, such as those experienced through exposure to second-hand smoke. Although passive smokers may have an uptake of tobacco smoke equivalent to only about 1 per cent. of that of an active smoker, the risk of their developing heart disease increases by 25 per cent.
	Last year, a study in the British Medical Journal estimated on that basis that more than three times as many people die from ischemic heart disease as a result of passive smoking as die from lung cancer. Evidence produced in the past four or five years suggests that small amounts of exposure to second-hand smoke can lead to substantial increases in the risk of developing cardiovascular disease.

Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House what that article said about the number of people who die each year because of passive smoking in the workplacecan he remember?

Andrew Lansley: The BMJ report refers to some 1,500 people dying from passive smoking as a result of the increased risk of lung cancer, some 5,500 people dying from passive smoking as a result of the increased risk of cardiovascular disease and about 4,000 people dying from the increased risk of strokeinterestingly, the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health did not find on the evidence that there is an established relationship between exposure to second-hand smoke and an increased risk of stroke.

Hugh Bayley: Perhaps I can remind the hon. Gentleman that it has been estimated that more than 600 people a year die from inhaling second-hand smoke in the workplace, which is significant given that only 130 people a year die from asbestosis.

Andrew Lansley: I recall the figure to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, although I think that it appeared in a different BMJ study. I do not dispute that a significant number of deaths have been and continue to be associated with exposure to second-hand smoke in the workplace, which is one of the reasons why we have always supported protection in the workplace. As we set out in our manifesto, the objectives of policy should be to reduce the incidence of smoking, to ensure that non-smokers are not exposed to smoke unless they want to be, to protect workers in the workplace and to ensure that children are not exposed to second-hand smoke. We set out that position in our manifesto; I said it again on Second Reading and I have not departed from it. We are debating how those objectives will be achieved and the balances to be struck, which I shall discuss in a moment.
	As shadow Secretary of State for Health, I must saynot least to my hon. Friendsthat it is imperative on health grounds to stop unwanted exposure to second-hand smoke and potentially reduce the prevalence of smoking, especially among young people whose smoking habits tend to become entrenched in the workplace. The Secretary of State accepted that point when she introduced the Bill at the end of last year, but she then made a perverse and bogus distinction between pubs that serve food and those that do not. On Second Reading, we asked her to explain the health grounds for making such a distinction, but she offered no evidence on that point. However, given the effect of that on health inequalities, which was subsequently exposed in great detail by the Select Committee on Health, we knew that it was wrong when it was presented. I think that most Labour Members knew that it was wrong and, frankly, that the Secretary of State knew that it was wrong, but she would not admit it. Her acquiescence in the Airdrie and Shotts provisions was a failure on her part. She is condemned by the fact that she would not stand by her own instincts and, as Secretary of State for Health, by the views and recommendations of the chief medical officer.
	We now have the utter humiliation of the Secretary of State voting against her own legislation. Never before has a Government Minister brought forward a measure and voted against it in this way.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman spoke strongly in support of the importance of the views of the chief medical officer. What are his views on private clubs?

Andrew Lansley: I shall come to that in a moment. [Interruption.] Well, I will do better than the Secretary of State, because I will tell the House how I am going to vote. A few minutes ago, she appeared to extol the fact that she is giving a free vote to Labour Membersor her Whips are. We gave a free vote on Second Reading. The Liberal Democrats did not, but have been persuaded to do so by the changes that we have brought about. I recall that on Second Reading Labour Members endorsed our view that this matter should be governed by a free vote because of the contrary views and evidence that needed to be listened to.
	The Secretary of State would not listen, and now she has had to learn. Curiously, however, we do not know quite how far she has gone. In new clause 5, she has abandoned the prospect of an exemption for non-food pubs. Whereas previously she was prepared to consult on whether there should be smoking rooms in licensed premises, she now seems to have concluded that there cannot be such a consultation and must not be such smoking rooms. I did not hear her express a view on the remaining central question relating to clubs. Presumably we can have a debate about that, and in two and a half hours we will all be very excited to see whether she is for or against it. On Second Reading, she said:
	It is . . . right to exempt membership clubs.
	She said of members of the public:
	They clearly view membership clubs as private clubs run by members for members. Such clubs have always been treated differently from other licensed premises because they are non-profit-making organisations.[Official Report, 29 November 2005; Vol. 440, c. 156.]
	That was the Secretary of State's advice on Second Reading, but given the handbrake turn that we have seen since then, what point is there in taking her advice? Even her own junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), is not going to do soor perhaps it is vice versa; we simply do not know.

Edward Garnier: If the Secretary of State has a point of principle to deploy in relation to non-profit-making private clubs, does my hon. Friend understand what it is?

Andrew Lansley: I make a distinction between licensed premises and private members' clubs

Edward Garnier: Non-profit-making.

Andrew Lansley: I do not understand the distinction as regards non-profit-making, but the Secretary of State might like to explain it, as she brought it up on Second Reading. In my book, the distinction is that they are membership clubs run by members for members.

Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend accept that the scope of amendment (a) is unprecedented and that if passed it would result in a massive shift of public policy? Does he agree that since 1863, when Sir George Grey was Home Secretary, this House has taken the view that the rules in force in private members' clubs should be matters for them, not us?

Andrew Lansley: As it happens, I did not know that it had been true since 1863, but I take advice from my right hon. Friend, who might like to expand on that point.
	My point is that as shadow Secretary of State for Health, I will say that I am trying to secure as successfully as we can a reduction of smoking and the incidence of people being exposed to second-hand smoke, consistent with the principle that we should not interfere with people's private space.

Several hon. Members: rose

Andrew Lansley: I want to make some progress, and then I will give way by all means.
	It is now up to Members to make up their minds. In my view, we are considering not the nuisance value but the health effects of second-hand smoke. Those health effects demand that non-smokers should not be exposed to second-hand smoke. However, we must balance that objective with the principle that we should not interfere disproportionately in people's right to choose how to behave in their homes or private space. That distinction between public and private space is vital.

Jim Devine: Let me summarise the hon. Gentleman's case: it is acceptable to kill people who work in private clubs but not those who work in public licensed premises.

Andrew Lansley: I do not accept that and I shall explain why. Freedom to choose whether to smoke in one's private space must be respected. That liberty does not extend to exposing other people to harm in a public place. On that basis, exemptions to the requirement for premises to be smoke-free should include private homes and private vehicles, as amendment No. 6 proposesI hope that we shall have an opportunity to press that to a Division. Places that are one's home on a temporary basis and private members' clubs should be exempt.
	I understand the case about employees but, as was said from the Liberal Democrat Benches, I do not believe that we could or should require people not to smoke in their homes when staff or employees are present. I therefore do not support the argument that private homes or private members' clubs should be smoke-free on the ground of the presence of employees.

Sadiq Khan: The intellectual basis for the hon. Gentleman's justification of a ban in a public space but not in a private club is choice in private space. Does he wear a seat belt in his car?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I do because I obey the law. Parliament took a view, as it will this afternoon, and that is acceptable. However, Parliament must take a view on the basis of principle. I believe that we should adhere to the principle that private members' clubs constitute private space and we should respect that.
	I do not dispute that clubs will have to be subject to regulations. That might require mitigation or a no-smoking-at-the-bar rule, similar to that of the British Beer and Pub Association.

Richard Ottaway: It is open to private clubs to install ventilation equipment. Does my hon. Friend agree that that issue has not been aired yet? [Hon. Members: Oh dear.] That could be tackled in regulations so that people could work in private clubs without danger to their health.

Andrew Lansley: Yes. That was a timely intervention. If we give clubs an exemption, we should not necessarily exclude them from regulations. Through their desire not to expose themselves to litigation, they will have to consider ventilation. Changes in technology may have an impact on that. I do not believe that it is currently sufficient to rely on ventilation because of the persistence of toxins in the air, but it may be possible in future.

Louise Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Roy Castle international centre for lung cancer research in Liverpool was founded by Roy Castle's widow, Fiona, because the renowned comedian had died from second-hand smoke through performing in clubs? He had never smoked. Does not that suggest that the ban should extend to clubs?

Andrew Lansley: I have received a letter from Fiona Castle and I fully understand that point. I would prefer clubs to be non-smoking but I hold to the principle that a private club is an extension of people's private space, and, just as I would not try to legislate to intervene directly in what people do in their home, I do not propose to vote for a measure that does that.

Several hon. Members: rose

Andrew Lansley: We have only three hours. It is a pity that we do not have longer but I must try to conclude and I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for not giving way.
	The Government were not willing at any stage, including Committee, to make special provision to protect children from exposure to second-hand smoke. The evidence of the effects in asthma and respiratory conditions suggests that we should offer additional protection. Parents must take responsibility in their own homes, but in clubs we should provide that smoking should not be allowed in areas to which children have access.

John Redwood: Is there a way, under the provisions before us, for someone to vote for a less restrictive position in pubs, as with clubs, while at the same time ensuring some protection for workers in pubs? The Secretary of State seems to believe that there will be protection for workers in clubs.

Andrew Lansley: I am not aware of any way of securing additional protection for such workers using the votes available to us this afternoon. The way in which the votes are structured will either impose a smoking ban in those premises or not. Conditions could be applied in regulations, to make distinctions about where smoking would be permitted within premises. For example, the recommendation in the Beer and Pub Association's code about smoking at the bar could be incorporated into regulations relating to clubs.

Humfrey Malins: I understand the thinking behind a smoking ban in clubs where children are present, but does my hon. Friend realise that most sports clubs are private members' clubsrugby clubs, golf clubs and football clubs, for exampleand that they now have a junior membership? Does the amendment that my hon. Friend is discussing envisage a ban in all such clubs?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, it does.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Lansley: No. I do not want to take up any more of hon. Members' time than I have to.
	My colleagues and I have tabled amendment (i), the purpose of which is to provide that smoking should not be allowed in certain places to which children have access. It would also have the benefit of offsetting any market distortion between pubs and clubs that might otherwise result. Pubs that are non-smoking and open to the public would also offer a smoke-free environment for families and children. Clubs would have to choose whether to accommodate children or smoking, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) must understand if he chooses to vote for the amendment.
	Let me turn to the voting. I will support the motion that new clause 5 be read a second time. The new clause will have the beneficial effect of getting rid of the Government's discredited partial ban. I will then vote against amendment (a), tabled in the name of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Don Valley, so that the exemption for clubs can be maintained. If amendment (a) is defeated, I will thenwith your permission, Mr. Deputy Speakerseek to press amendment (i) to a vote, so as to prevent children from being exposed to second-hand smoke in clubs. I hope that amendment No. 6 will be pressed to a vote by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). If so, I will support it, to ensure that the ban in clause 5 of the Bill could not be extended to private vehicles not being offered for hire.
	The voting might be complex, but the principles involved are pretty straightforward. We must reduce smoking and the exposure to second-hand smoke. We should not permit people's liberty to choose whether to smoke to extend to a licence to cause harm to others, but we cannot allow legislation to intrude into the choices that people make in their private space. I hope that these explanations have been of some assistance to hon. Members across the House.

Stephen Pound: I admire greatly the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done on these matters. It is important, as we approach the last gasp of the process, to reiterate her earlier point that, if much of the proposed legislationparticularly the provisions on infection control and pharmaceutical servicesis non-contentious, that is because it has been thoroughly worked on in Committee and comes to the House in a state of such purity that the majority of us will be only too keen to support it.
	I should like to respond to some of the comments made by the right hon. Memberis he right hon.?for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley).

Andrew Lansley: indicated dissent.

Stephen Pound: Well, the imminently right hon. Member, then. I associate myself with his congratulations on the extraordinary fecundity of those on the Conservative Benches. If Conservative Members keep producing children at this rate, I will be seriously worried that the Labour Government could be threatened in about 18 years. For the moment, however, I think that congratulations, and possibly a cigar, to the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) would be entirely appropriate.
	We have the unaccustomed and rather intoxicating luxury of a free vote on this subject. A number of my colleagues are already asking how the Whips want them to vote on the free vote, but for once we are able to make a decision without any of the normal party-political baggage. It does credit to right hon. and hon. Members that much of the discussion that has taken place has been non-partisan, and I genuinely believe that we are trying to do what is best.
	Let us start from the assumption, revolutionary though it may seem, that tobacco is not actually good for one, and that were it to be discovered today it would be a dangerous drug and we would not have a great deal to do with it. The temptation to take the simplistic approach, however, seems to have gone to the heads of a number of right hon. and hon. Members.
	I would suggest that it is not possible to uninvent something. We must look at the sheer practicalities. It is entirely understandable that we wish to stand as sea-green incorruptibles on a snow-capped peak and say There shall be no tobacco: let a thousand children breathe uncluttered airunless, of course, they happen to live in a city or a village or a town, or anywhere where there is a motor car, or anywhere where there is any ancillary industry. But will new clause 5 and the amendments tabled by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), achieve that?
	We have the chance to benefit from some empirical evidence. Purely for the purpose of my parliamentary duties, I was in Dublin the week before last. As dusk settled over that wondrous city, I took the opportunity to wander the streets in search of licensed premisesin an investigative role. I had been told that Ireland was the exemplar of the new legislation, as it is an exemplar in so many ways. This was the place where the smoking ban had been imposed, and by heaven, the proud Celts had stepped back and said That's it: no more cigarettes.
	What a vision I observed in Temple Bar! What an extraordinary sight greeted me when, with a number of my parliamentary colleagues and several Members of the Dail, I visited a number of pubs to find that all fell into one or other of two categories. In one category, the entire perimeter area was covered with patio heaters and armchairs, so that anyone who wanted to go into the admittedly smoke-free pub had to fight his way through a tangible fug of nicotine-soaked air to get into the damn place to start with, which made something of a nonsense of the arrangement. If it was not possible to find a pub ringed with patio heatersthere may be some hon. Members, possibly on the Conservative Benches, who are not entirely averse to making a profit from time to time, and I say to them Buy patio heater shares nowthere were other pubs which, to my amazement, had somehow managed to fit a false ceiling and to claim that part of the pub was no longer part of the integral structure. It was possible to stand where my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Patrick Hall) is sitting now and smoke away to one's heart's content beneath a false ceiling, while my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) would be on the other side thinking that he was in a smoke-free pub.
	The fact remains that people smoke. Admittedly, we want to stop them smoking.

Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Stephen Pound: Hang on a second. I am just getting going. I am a little short of breath, and what little I have I try to make the most of.
	Having listened to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, I consider it a miracle that any of us have survived, given his talk of an apocalyptic Armageddon of nicotine poisoning that is somehow threatening to decimate the nation.
	Every morning I used to rise and have a reflective cigarette; then I would have breakfast and a cigarette; then I would say my prayers, but remember what my good Jesuit confessor said: You should never ever smoke while you are praying, but you can pray while you are smoking. I would then get on a bus and leap like a lithe gazelle to the upper deck, where I would have a couple of Players Weights before jumping off. By the time I got to primary school, I could, as ashtray monitor, go to the staff room and pick up a few dog-ends.

Lynne Jones: rose

Stephen Pound: On the subject of fag-ends, I will certainly give way to my hon. Friend.

Lynne Jones: No doubt my hon. Friend will regard me as something of a spoilsport when I point out the following to him. Last Friday, my parliamentary assistant went to the Bill Office to try to table amendments that would have banned smoking in the outside spaces of establishments where people are served food and drink and in outside spaces where people are required to gather to use public transport or as spectators for sporting or cultural events. She was told by the Clerk that the measures I wanted to include in the Bill are in fact already included under clause 2. It refers to
	areas which are enclosed or substantially enclosed,
	and states that the
	appropriate national authority may specify in regulations what 'enclosed' and 'substantially enclosed' mean.
	I very much hope that the Clerk is right and that the regulations will prevent smoking in those spaces, as per my intention.

Stephen Pound: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as is, I believe, the whole House. So it is Goodnight Irene for the walled city of York. However, it must be said that those of us in the wide open spaces of west London seldom consider ourselves enclosed, and very seldom restrained.
	There is a desperately serious point. We are trying to do something about public health, and the group of people about whom we are most worriedyoung people aged between about 11 and 13 who are taking up this habitare the very people who do not go to pubs. To a large extent, discussing pubs in the context of stopping smoking is nonsense, because in doing so we are not dealing with the people whom we actually want to address. We must never forget the Oscar Wilde quote:
	As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular.
	As long as tobacco smoking is seen as this dreadful, wicked thing that film stars do and there are people in pubs doing it, it will be attractive to children. We must address the issue of role models and public practice. Were I a role model, I would plead guilty in this regard, but fortunately I am not. So this is a very serious issue and the question is how we best deal with it. Frankly, as with so many things, there are three different options.
	The first is the pure libertarian view, eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) in his famous book, which is compulsory bedside reading for many of us, that everything should be allowed. That is a legitimate intellectual argument.
	The second option is the counter-argument that everything should be banned. Tobacco is bad for peopleban it. Cars are bad for peopleban them. Alcohol is bad for peopleban the lot. Ban everything, and we will subsist on a milk toast diet of muesli as we shuffle through the empty streets of our city, looking for a little stimulation where we may find it.
	Those are both perfectly legitimate intellectual arguments: everything bad is banned; everything bad is allowed. Or, we can opt fordare I say it?co-existence and compromise. Instead of concentrating on what divides us, let us concentrate on what unites us. Would it not be possible

Frank Dobson: To become a Cameronian?

Stephen Pound: I am more of a Camerooniana fan of Samuel Eto'o.
	Why should it not be possible for those of us who wish to do so to go to our Royal British Legion, where the staff are happy and prepared to work, and where the members are happy and prepared to enter, to have our cigarette and our pint? Others prefer the smoke-free sushi bars ofI was going to say Primrose Hill, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) is in his place, and I do not wish to embarrass him. Why cannot we have the choice? It would be sensible to step back a little as putative legislators and accept that sometimes simply banning something does not make it disappear.

Lembit �pik: rose

Stephen Pound: On the subject of those things that one would not wish to ban, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Lembit �pik: I would say that the hon. Gentleman has my full support, but that would probably be the kiss of death to his argument, and perhaps to his career.
	I suggest a middle waya fourth way, perhapsthat has not been much discussed. Why do we focus on the process of smoking, rather than on the outcome of clean air? Does he agree that we should be willing to entertain the challenge of an indoor clean air Act and leave technology the challenge of finding a solution? A multimillion pound business such as smoking surely has the creativity and willingness to make the investment to find that solution, instead of our taking away people's freedom of choice.

Stephen Pound: I am grateful for that intervention, although by and large the Liberals should resist making too much legislation, because it can be habit-forming.
	I was about to mention the practicalities of the ban. Amendment No. 8 has been tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), with whom I seldom have much in common, but on this occasion I trail behind him. He is not in his place at the moment, but I am sure that he is not having a cigarette outside. The amendment recognises a way in which we can co-exist. To see that way, one does not need to search out some distant nirvana or go to some distant nation that has somehow managed to structure the perfect legislative process. One need go only to the Upper Committee Corridor, where one will find an oasis, capped with graceful brushed aluminium, beneath which the discerning man or woman may stand, enjoy a cigarette, do whatever damage to themselves they will, and do no damage to anyone else. The tobacco smoke is swept up into the cowl, where it is filtered and exuded

John Hemming: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Pound: Possibly it is exuded in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I shall give way to him so that he may correct me.

John Hemming: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about Ireland. The issue is where people smoke. There is evidence that since the ban there has been a 5 per cent. drop in the consumption of tobacco in Ireland, but if 95 per cent. of deaths from passive smoking occur from smoking in the home, the number of deaths from passive smoking may increase as a result of a ban on smoking in public places.

Stephen Pound: The hon. Gentleman is an expert in many fields. I was coming to the point that Ireland has seen a considerable increase in off-sales, which leads one to believe that those people who do not recognise the reality of the patio heater and the false ceiling are taking six-packs and 40 fags back to their homes, where their children will be. We need to think about that.

Kevin Barron: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Stephen Pound: Well[Hon. Members: Go on!] I will give way, but my right hon. Friend is nearly always right and I am nearly always wrong, so I am always reluctant to give way to him. I wish to finish my point, and then I will give way to him.
	Technology is our friend on this issue. It is possible to scrub and clean the air. We have an example on the Upper Committee Corridor

Michael Fabricant: It does not work.

Stephen Pound: It does work, and all independent air testing verifies that. However, I have a terrible suspicion gnawing at my vitals that my right hon. Friend may be about to prove me wrong.

Kevin Barron: The press release of 17 October last year from the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), made it clear that ventilation does not work.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) spoke about people in Ireland moving from pub to home to smoke. The Select Committee on Health took evidence from numerous organisations in Ireland, and was told on three occasions that what a senior politician on this side of the Irish sea had said was not true. There is no evidence that more people in Ireland are smoking at home. That was confirmed by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who has responsibility for public health, when she gave evidence to the Committee during our inquiry.

Stephen Pound: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's contribution.

Frank Dobson: Withdraw.

Stephen Pound: I would withdraw my remarks, but the reality is that off-sales have increased in Ireland. I was structuring an exegesis on that, and assumed that the off-sales would be consumed.

Iris Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Pound: In a second. I know that the hon. Lady knows more about off-sales in Ireland than I do, but I was assuming that they were being consumed in the home. It is entirely possible that people are thronging to Phoenix park and drinking in the open air, but my assumption is that an increase in off-sales implies an increase in home consumption.

Kevin Barron: There is no evidence.

Stephen Pound: The evidence is of an increase in off-sales.
	Untypically, I shall turn to a more serious matter before I finish. However, on the subject of seriousness, I give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson).

Iris Robinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman. In the Irish Republic, one person in three used to smoke, but that has fallen to fewer than one in four. That significant change shows that the ban has been a deterrent. If a ban is good enough for the Irish Republic and for Northern Ireland, I do not see why we should differentiate on the mainland.

Stephen Pound: It is clear that two of us here read the Irish Medical Journal. The figures show that there has been a continuing decline in the numbers of smokers over the past five years. There is no statistical evidence to suggest that the numbers have risen since the smoking ban was introduced. The long Kondratiev cycle has to be borne in mind, but five years is statistically significant.
	I do not want to detain the House, but I appeal to hon. Members to think about the practicalities. A total ban will not make tobacco disappear, but coexistence is possible. I accept that we would prefer not to have either tobacco or smokers, but in fact we have both.
	Earlier, I mentioned the smoke-free cowl on the Upper Committee Corridor, but now I refer the House to the dystopic hellHernando's Hideawaythat is the smoking room on the Library Corridor. It is like the Raft of the Medusa most nights, with great groups of people crammed into it. The air there is a little much even for my fragile lungs.
	We need sanity and sense. This debate has stirred great emotions, but talking about dead bodies littering the streets, adopting an absolute position and saying that smoking will disappear if it is banned are not good ways to approach the matter. We must accept the reality of tobacco's existence and try to mitigate the nuisance and annoyance that it causes. We must protect young people from tobacco smoke and stop them taking up smoking, but for heaven's sake we must not make matters much worse by introducing legislation that Draco the lawgiver would have felt was too extreme.

Steve Webb: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) is a tough act to follow. Although I have been the butt of his humour, I think that the Standing Committee might have been greatly enhanced by his presence.
	At the heart of this debate are the health and safety of people working in pubs, clubs and enclosed public spaces. That has to be our starting point. It is welcome that the Government have got rid of the absurd distinction between food and non-food pubs.
	In the Standing Committee, on which I served, and on Second Reading, the House was told why a gradualist approach was the thing to do: any country that introduced a ban had done so gradually, so the food/non-food distinction was a vital part of the effective implementation of the policy. Some weeks later, it is apparent that that was nonsense and that the Government knew it all along, so at least we have made some progress on that front.
	I am trying to work out what constitutes a rebel nowadays, because we seem to have reached a never-never world. The Secretary of State has tabled an amendment in defiance of her party's manifesto and her junior Minister has tabled an amendment to the right hon. Lady's amendment, while the Department of Health press release, issued on 2 February, stated:
	Although the New Clause has been tabled in Patricia Hewitt's name and the Amendment in Caroline Flint's name, this is simply in order to facilitate a free vote and does not necessarily indicate which way either will vote themselves.
	That is an incredible situation and, even today, in response to an intervention, the Secretary of State said that she had not made up her mind. One can understand the merits of a free vote, but the idea that the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the health of the nation and thus, to some extent for the health and safety of workers, does not know what she thinks is extraordinary. Indeed, the whole sequence of events has shown a lack of leadership by the Government. They tried to discern and follow public opinion, realised that they were running behind it and so they are trying to play catch-up. That is no way to set a health policy.
	The principal bone of contention is the position of private members' clubs. If we consider the matter, as I have done throughout, in terms of the health and safety of people who work in those environments, the fact that I am breathing in the second-hand smoke of someone who happens to have a membership card is irrelevant. The fact that they have agreed with other club members that they have the right to smoke, and I am expected to breathe it in, is irrelevant. The club is not home and people are inflicting smoke not on themselves or their loved ones, but on other people.

Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is not obliged either to join a club or to go to one as a guest. If he knows that there is smoking in the club and he does not want to go there, he has no need to do so.

Steve Webb: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening to what I said. The point that I am making is not about other customers or members of the club but about the health and safety of the people who work there. It is not about whether I choose to patronise the club, but the workers. As the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said, we are talking about not one or two people but a large numberabout 166,000.

Andrew Selous: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many of our constituents in many parts of the country may not have a choice about where they work? Jobs may be in short supply, especially for young people16 to 17-year-oldsfor whom getting a first job is extremely difficult. They are often jolly lucky to be offered anything at all.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I admire his courage in standing up for his principles. It is an extraordinary notion of health and safety that we should tell people who are working in an environment that is bad for their health, Tough. Go and work somewhere else. If asbestos was found in the roof of a private members' club, we would not tell the staff to work somewhere else. We would sort out the health and safety problem, which is exactly what we should do in this case.

Jim Devine: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the British Medical Association report produced at the end of 2005, which compared the respiratory function of bar staff in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland before and after the introduction of the ban? The respiratory function of bar staff in the Republic after the ban was significantly better.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. There is also evidence from the land of the freeCaliforniashowing precisely the same thing over a much longer period: the lung and respiratory function of bar staff has substantially improved since bans were introduced.

Peter Bone: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but can he explain why smoking will be allowed in prisons? I do not follow the logic of that.

Steve Webb: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I suspect that the reason is more to do with pragmatism than anything else, but I am making an argument about private clubs. The Secretary of State says that 95 per cent. of passive smoke comes from the home, as though the other 5 per cent. is somehow inconsequential, yet we have heard that we are talking about a very large number of people whose health is clearly adversely affected and, probably, thousands of premature deaths over a period of years. Although I enjoyed the comments of the hon. Member for Ealing, North, perhaps we need not be apocalyptic, but such things are fundamentally important to each individual case.

Andrew Turner: Of course, such things are fundamentally important to each individual case but, if only 5 per cent. of those who have died of passive smoking acquired that outside the homethat seems to be the figure that the Secretary of State was quotingwill the hon. Gentleman explain on what basis we are supposed to make a judgment? Of course, if that was 100 per cent. likely, the case for banning it might be better than if it was nil per cent. likely. What we seem to be hearing is that that is relatively unlikely. Is not passive motoring a great deal more dangerous?

Steve Webb: No. The hon. Gentleman is getting confused between a certainty of 5 per cent. and a probability of five in 100. In other words, as we have just heard, no one doubts that the health of people who work in bars where people smoke suffers and that some of them die prematurely. That is certain, inasmuch as these things can ever be proven with certainty. There is not a 5 per cent. chance that that is true; it is pretty much 100 per cent. true for that 5 per cent. That is the distinction that I am making. A set of people who work in such environments suffer and that is pretty much proven empirically.
	Irrespective of whether we are talking about private space, the issue is about the welfare of the people who work there. If we exempt private members' clubs, do we risk driving a coach and horses through the exemption altogether? I am not sure whether I am clear about the answer. Will the Rose and Crown turn itself into a private members' club?

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling point. I got involved in this campaign many years ago, because I believed in the protection of workers' health. I joined the Labour party because I thought that protecting workers' health was one of our fundamental principles. Is not this also about changing the culture? That is why it is important to take the clubs out as smoking venues: we want to change the culture of how people perceive their leisure and their fun. It is important to have smoke-free leisure and smoke-free fun.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that a total ban would have that effecttotal bans have done so where they have been implementedbut that is not where I am coming from. Clearly, a total ban is much easier to enforce than a partial one. I want to return to the loophole point, because the profit-making issue has been raised. Again, I cannot understand the relevance to someone who works in a smoky environment of whether or not they are making more or less money from the sales than it is costing them to sell the goods. That seems to be a red herring.

Chris Bryant: May I push the hon. Gentleman in a different direction on loopholes and private members' clubs? A private members' club such as the Garrick in London is a very different beast from a private members' club such as Treorchy working men's social club, because the working men's clubs in constituencies such as mine are, to all intents and purposes, the place that people normally go to do their drinking, as if it were an ordinary pub. If we exempt working men's clubs, we will do nothing for the vast majority of the poorest people in my constituency who are equally affected.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue about, for example, communities with one members' club and one pub. To the extent that a set of people will vote with their feet, a pub that is prevented from allowing anyone to smoke could lose business and thereby possibly be undermined. Again, it would be unfair to introduce such a distortion using legislation.
	The Secretary of State spoke about space around the bar. If we do not pass the ban on smoking in private members' clubs, I am not sure whether people must chalk lines on the floor or use white tape to show that people can smoke on one side of the line but not the other. A distance criterion has been suggested, as though the smoke will come to a screeching halt at the line. That is a strange basis on which to protect people's health. Will we say that people can smoke if they face away from the bar but not if they face towards it? It seems incredible that ministerial comments so far have suggested a distance criterion. People can smoke if they stand away from the bar, but not if they are close to it. The Secretary of State shakes her head, but that is exactly what was said on Second Reading, as the record will show. In a sense, the proposal is a fudge that accepts that passive smoke is bad for the people who work in such clubs.

Anne Milton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever our viewsthere have been heated exchanges across the Floor and within the partiesit is crucial that there is clarity and not confusion? We must be clear exactly what we will end up with. If we are not, the law will be unenforceable and unworkable.

Steve Webb: I very much agree with that point. We may have clarity for pubs, but applying the rules will be much more difficult in clubs if there is a distance requirement or the rules apply only to parts of the building. Enforcement is much more difficult if there is a lack of clarity.

Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give the lie to what someone said about it being a huge breach of tradition in this place if there were legislation for private members' clubs? That is not the case. We all know that health and safety regulations apply equally to private members' clubs, pubs and factories. Would it not be sane for legislation such as this to apply also to private members' clubs?

Steve Webb: Not only is the hon. Gentleman right, but that might be the outcome even if the House tried to make such a distinction. The idea that there would be a set of workers who had second-class protection seems unsustainable. Even if that were the will of the House today, I have a feeling that the issue would return here via the courts very soon.
	I wish to make further observations about some of the arguments that are used for exempting private members' clubs. The first is that we have some sort of carriage in which people would not have to work. People would presumably have to get in and out of such rooms and smoke goes to and fro. People would also have to clear the glasses in such rooms and sort out any scuffles that might take place. Smoke will remain in such areas, especially if they are sealed, for a considerable time. Without the ventilation found in a jumbo jetI gather that it is what it would take completely to purify the airthere will be residual toxins in the air. The well-being of the workers cannot be protected just by having a partitioned-off room.
	We have made progress on the Bill, but clearly we have not gone far enough. There is a balance of liberties to consider. People want to be able to smoke and they will still be able to do so in their own homes and out of doors, but it is the job of the House to protect the liberty of people to work in an environment that does not potentially fatally damage their health. That is why I have argued consistently throughoutI will again vote for this in the Lobby tonightthat a total ban is the only proper approach to the issue.

Kevin Barron: I thank my Front-Bench colleagues and the Government for giving me and all Labour Members, both Front and Bank Benchers, the opportunity of a free vote.
	When I and my colleagues on the Health Committee began to consider the issue, we did not know what the outcome would be. It is fair to say that some of us held widely differing views, while others had not yet made up their minds. We did what the House and the Select Committee system asked us to do. We took evidence and heard from witnesses. We heard from doctors, public health experts, the tobacco industry, the hospitality trade, trade unions, the Health and Safety Commission, the chief medical officer at the Department of Health and others. Having heard and read all the evidence, we reached a conclusion without dissent. Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and independent Members signed the report and the subsequent amendment tabled for Report that was withdrawn when the Government tabled new clause 5 and amendments (a) to (d).
	It is relatively unusual for such a clear view to emerge from a Select Committee. I say that as I look at my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), whose Committee has presented a report to the House in recent weeks. Because our Committee took such a clear view, I believe that what it said is worthy of careful consideration by the House tonight. I am grateful to my colleagues on the Committeefrom all parties and nonefor their hard work and willingness to consider the evidence fairly before reaching an objective decision.

Michael Fabricant: The right hon. Gentleman has campaigned on the issue for a long time. Did his Committee consider the possibility of using air conditioning? Does he think that it is a practical proposition or that it is impractical, as the Californians and those in New York city have found?

Kevin Barron: I said earlier that when the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), made a statement on comprehensive legislation on the matter for Northern Ireland, which will be considered in the House because of the suspension of the Assembly, he said that ventilation did not work. We examined ventilation and found no evidence to support its use. An academic from the university of Wales could supply us with no evidence that air conditioning works. It might work if there is a system such as that in a hospital theatre, but opening windows and doors does not protect bar workers.
	If, as I expect and hope, this proves to be a good day for Parliament, I suggest that it will also be a good day for the Select Committee system. Let me summarise what the Committee found. First, scientific evidence on the health effects of second-hand smoke is clear and overwhelming. We accept the verdict of the Government's advisers from the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and HealthSCOTHthat exposure to second-hand smoke increases the risk to non-smokers of heart disease and lung cancer by about a quarter.
	In most, although not all, cases, the tobacco industry continues to deny such evidence. Representatives of the industry continued to pursue that line when they gave evidence to the Committee. However, it should not be forgotten that for many years the industry denied in public that direct smoking was a cause of cancer, although its private view was very different. Indeed, action that was taken in the United States meant that it opened its archives, which gave us evidence that it knew about the consequences of direct smoking years ago, but hid those facts.

Ian Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the work of Sir Richard Doll, who sadly died a year ago at the age of 90? In 1954, he produced the first paper that showed the increased mortality of heavy smokers. He also showed that people could live longer depending on the age at which they gave up smoking.

Kevin Barron: I acknowledge what Richard Doll did in not only the United Kingdom, but worldwide. His authority on the matter was denied for many years, mostly due to the connivance of the tobacco industry, which tried to hide the fact that deaths were caused by tobacco here and throughout the world.
	Using the estimates of risk in the SCOTH report, Professor Konrad Jamrozik calculated in a paper published in the British Medical Journal that exposure to second-hand smoke in the workplace caused about 600 deaths a year, which is about three times the number of people in this country killed in industrial accidents each year. Second-hand smoke is also responsible for thousands of episodes of illness. For example, Asthma UK reports that it is the second most common trigger of asthma attacks at work.
	Of course, workers who are routinely exposed to other people's smoke are those who are most at risk. Bar workers are thus top of the list, but we should not forget that the Government's figures show that about 2 million people work in places in which smoking is allowed throughout and that more than 10 million people work in places in which smoking is allowed somewhere on the premisesthat is not a small number. I suggest that there are thus sufficient health and safety justifications for ending smoking in the workplace. I deeply regret that the Bill is seen as a measure of public opinion, rather than a measure to protect people in the workplace, which is how other such legislation that we pass is thought of.

Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend and I have been companions in arms on the matter for a long time and have been called a lot of namesI suppose that puritans was one of the nicest. Hon. Members have called the Bill a ban on smoking. It is not a ban on smoking, but a line in the sand that says that we will from now start a new culture in our country in which people realise that smoking kills them, or seriously affects their health.

Kevin Barron: I could not agree more and will come on to that point.
	Health and safety concerns are sufficient reason for resisting the Government's original plans to exempt from smoke-free legislation pubs that do not serve food. Why should workers in such pubs be denied the protection that other workers are to be given? It is nonsense to think that we should pass such a measure in the House. Health and safety concerns are sufficient reason not to exempt membership clubs from the law. Licensed clubs employ bar staff, who are routinely exposed to other people's smoke. The fact that the clubs in which they work are owned by members does not afford them any protection from lung cancer or heart disease. The notion that club members should be able to vote to continue to expose their workers to such risks is unacceptable. I came to the House after working for 18 years in one of the most dangerous industries in the United Kingdom. It would be unacceptable for Parliament to pass legislation on that industry by ignoring fundamental facts, but the Bill attempts to do so on smoking.
	It is farcical to suggest that a private members' club is an extension of the home. I have been a member of a club for many years, but clubs are not as private and secluded as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested on the radio this morning. A member of a club in the Club and Institute Union can affiliate to the wider union for 3 a year, and can go to 2,600 clubs and buy a drink without anyone preventing them from doing so. Royal British Legion clubs, too, are not exclusivea member of the British Legion can walk into any of its clubs and be served a drink.
	The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) raised the issue of children. Clubs differ marginally from public houses, because there are often many children inside them. They are family-oriented and many hold weekly discos for young children. They organise Easter bonnet parades, Christmas functions and so on for families and young children, so the proposal to exempt clubs from the smoking ban is ludicrous.
	If Members do not believe that it is reasonable and practicable to protect people in the workplace under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, they should wait until the House passes the smoking legislation and see what the no win, no fee lawyers do to clubs trying to secure indemnity insurance. In its evidence to the Select Committee, the Health and Safety Commission clearly recommended that pubs, bars and clubs should be covered by the law in the same way as every other workplace. That view is shared by the TUC, which passed a motion nem. con. in congress in September to ban smoking in all workplaces. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which represents more than 640 bar workers in clubs, wants a ban, and issued a press release on FridayI am sure that Members have seen itin which general secretary John Hannett said:
	Our members are already reporting that they can get a lot of abuse when asking club members to stop smoking at the bar, which is already illegal.
	That is not, in fact, illegal in private clubs but only illegal in public bars. Mr. Hannett continued:
	So we think this amendment will make sure our members can work free of abuse from customers and free from abuse of their lungs.
	Why should club bar staff have to try to enforce the farcical measure whereby someone is not supposed to smoke near the bar?
	When the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley gave evidence to the Health Committee, I asked her about clubs that offer entertainment. If someone is working on the stage, will the Government say that we should stop people smoking near the stage? At a reception earlier today, I was talking to Fiona Castle, the widow of Roy Castle, who we all know contracted lung cancer without ever smoking a cigarette in his life. Many people think that that was because of the secondary smoke that he inhaled in his career as a club entertainer. It is nonsense to think that we can protect people from secondary smoke if exemptions such as the one proposed are made.
	Let me offer one more quote from somebody who works behind a barnot somebody who goes into a bar by choice, but somebody who gets a living behind a bar. Another of the staff whom USDAW represents says:
	If we are exempt from this ban, even more smokers are going to come in, and the smoke will get even worse.
	What have they done to deserve that? If a person can move from a pub in my village to a club over the road to smoke, that will make matters even worse not just for bar workers, but for other people in the club.

Patrick Hall: Those who argue that private members' clubs should be exempt accept that they should not be exempt from health and safety legislation. They rely, therefore, on the analogy between a private members' club and a person's private home. My right hon. Friend has already mentioned that, but does he agree that it cannot be emphasised enough that that analogy is entirely false and has no basis in reality?

Kevin Barron: The analogy is absolutely false. I hope the House will see it for what it is and vote accordingly after the debate.

David Clelland: Although I accept that the analogy is not a good one, does my right hon. Friend accept that the Bill does not make smoking in private illegal?

Kevin Barron: Indeed. I shall come to that, if I do not have to take any further interventions. I am keen to finish my speech because others want to speak.
	Labour Members gave a pledge in our manifesto about what we would and would not exempt. As an MP for more than 20 years, I have always taken manifesto commitments extremely seriously and I still do, but we must consider the matter logically and ask whether it would be practical to apply an exemption. The answer is no. It is not practical in respect of pubs that do not serve food or in respect of clubs.

Edward Balls: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful case for the full ban and for it to apply to private members' clubs as well, but he recognises that, because of the manifesto position, some people might have thought that the Government or the House would take a different view and that there would be time for them to adjust. Is he rigidly advocating the timetable as previously set out or is there a case for allowing people more time to prepare before the full ban comes in, applying both to bars and to private members' clubs?

Kevin Barron: That is a matter for the Government. If a comprehensive ban is agreed tonight, it is crucial that it is enforced in a way that means that everybody understands where one may smoke and where one may not smoke. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) is not with us. I had one or two things to say to him about that.
	If hon. Members are not persuaded by the health argument, what about the economic argument? To force some pubs to make a choice between stopping people smoking and stopping serving food would create a gross and unjustified market distortion, as well as making a mess of the Government's alcohol strategy and worsening health inequalities. To force pubs that cease to allow smoking to compete with bars and clubs in the same street that still permit it would be unfair and unreasonable.
	Like many other hon. Members, I have received representations not just from the industry, but from local publicans. I have one from Steve Smith and Wendy Edwards of The Thurcroft, a public house in one of the villages in my constituency. I know that public house very well. Five hundred yards down the road is Thurcroft Miners Welfare, and five hundred yards up the road is the Unity club, or the top club, as it is known in the village. The income of those people will be threatened directly if the ban suggested in new clause 5 is introduced.
	I received a letter from Mr. Jan Sowa, who runs a small company that runs three pubs, one of which is The Blue Bell in Aston, another village in my constituency. That pub, too, will be under threat if smoking is allowed in clubs. I do not want to see small businesses such as pubs close because of what the House does. I hope that other hon. Members do not want to see that either. That is why the British Beer and Pub Association, the British Hospitality Association and many others in the leisure and tourism industry now support comprehensive legislation. They see the dangers to businesses.

Iris Robinson: I want to underpin what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the economy suffering. Is he aware that one year after New York's smoke-free air act was introduced in 2003, tax receipts for restaurants and bars had risen by 8.7 per cent.? Over the same period, jobs in bars and restaurants increased by more than 10,000.

Kevin Barron: I agree with the hon. Lady, who will also know that Ireland's retail sales figures now show that bar sales rose sharply, by more than 5 per cent., in the year to October 2005. Such legislation is good for business.

David Lepper: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a point at which economics and health are linked? The landlord of a pub in my constituency, Chris Beaumont of The Greys, which is the only Egon Ronay-listed pub in Brighton, points out to me that he wants to carry on serving food, but there are 17 other pubs and two clubs within a square mile of his premises. If the measures suggested in new clause 5 are not introduced, people will either leave his pub to drink elsewhere or he will have to stop serving food. He points out to me, however, that if there were a total ban on smoking in all pubs, his customers would simply have to get used to it and possibly stop smoking

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. To set an example to others, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that a very short time is left, and long interventions really do not help.

Kevin Barron: My hon. Friend read out almost the whole e-mail, but not quite. Small businesses ask hon. Members on both sides of the House for a level playing field every day of the week. They want any legislation that gives them a level playing field and say, Let us know that next week is predictable. We should not introduce exemptions that could throw small businesses into chaos and which would have major effects in constituencies such as mine that have many small villages and pubs.

David Taylor: Did not our hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) make a particularly vacuous point in suggesting that an increase in sales in off-licences was evidence that more people were going to drink at home? In fact, a pre-existing trend was in place well before the banning of smoking in Irish pubs, and it was not affected by the ban.

Kevin Barron: That is true, but as I have already intervened on that matter, I shall not go any further.
	The new clause and amendments (a) to (d) would bring England into line with the law that is soon to come into effect in Scotland, that has now been promised in two votes by the National Assembly for Wales and that the Government have announced for Northern Ireland, on which I suspect we will legislate in the next few months. I hope that hon. Members from all three countries will see no difficulty in joining us in giving the same protection to workers and members of the public in England as the rest of the United Kingdom is getting.
	The tobacco industry and its allies often argue that smoke-free laws are an infringement of liberty, but I suggest that, once it is accepted that breathing in other people's smoke is dangerous to health, we will recognise that we are really dealing with a conflict of interest. I recognise people's right to smoke and that tobacco is a lawful product. Smoking may be self-destructive, but it is ultimately a matter of choice. I say to people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, that people in the Irish Republic make that choice. They step outside into unconfined spaces and still enjoy drinks and cigarettes as well without affecting other people in the pub, including bar workers. That view is certainly widely shared by the general public. Recent polling shows that about 70 per cent. of the public back comprehensive smoke-free legislation, including all pubs and bars.
	Finally, I want to mention the enormous public health benefit offered by smoke-free legislation. One in four adults in our country still smoke, and more than 100,000 of them will die as a result. It is by far the greatest cause of preventable deaths and the biggest single contributor to health inequalities and the difference in life expectancy between social classes. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North has found some fun in the matter, but I have great difficulty in making jokes about it.
	The Government's figures in the regulatory impact assessment suggest that a comprehensive smoke-free law would reduce smoking prevalence rates by 1.7 per cent. That would mean 700,000 people giving up smoking across England, which would lead as night follows day to thousands fewer dying each year from cancer, emphysema, peripheral vascular disease and other illnesses that can be caused by smoking. Over time, that would decrease health inequalities, which are far too great in many parts of this country.
	Last night, the House debated ID cards, including how useful they will be in preventing terrorism and saving lives. Tomorrow, we will debate the Terrorism Bill, and again the question will be how useful the legislation is in saving lives. Tonight, if hon. Members vote for amendments (a) to (d), they will do so in the certain knowledge that the legislation will save lives and drastically improve the health of our constituents.
	Several hon. Members rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The two Back-Bench contributions to this debate have averaged 21 minutes. I appeal for brevity if we are to get the breadth of opinion across the House.

Roger Gale: Amendment No. 8 would delete part 1 of the Bill in its entirety, which would force the Government anddare I say it?Her Majesty's official Opposition to think again.
	This evening, we have heard a series of arguments shot full of inconsistencies. In his peroration, the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) said that he would vote for a total ban. Oh no he will nota total ban is not on the agenda. If hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that smoking is so bad for one's health, that those who work bars, restaurants and private clubs suffer so much, and that 95 per cent. of the damage done by secondary smoking is done in the home and only 5 per cent. in other locations, surely, without looking too closely at the emperor's clothes, the argument must be that smoking should be banned altogether. People who do not adopt that approach are a little bit pregnant, and they must decide how far they are prepared to go down that ludicrous road.
	I do not smoke and I am asthmatic, but I believe that while the law of the land says that smoking is legal, the British publicthe English publicshould have the choice whether to smoke in smoking clubs, pubs and restaurants. They should also have the choices not to smoke in non-smoking clubs, pubs and restaurants and whether to work in such establishments. I do not know a single employee who has had a gun held to their head and been told, You must go and work in that pub, where they allow smoking.
	There is an answer but it is not on offer, which is why those Members who support amendment No. 8 want to delete part 1 of the Bill and make the House think again. The answer is that every drinking establishment, club, restaurant and pub is licensed to sell alcohol, and it does not take a great leap of imagination to work out that it is possible to licence every pub, club and restaurant to be either smoking or non-smoking. The public and employees would then choose which type of establishment they want to patronise, and they will choose smoke or smoke-free. I have no problem with making the installation of cleansing equipment a condition of obtaining a smoking licence. It has been said in this House this evening that air conditioning does   not work, but we are not talking about air conditioningwe are talking about air purification. Air purification systems do work. It is eminently reasonable to say that if a publican wants to have a smoking pub he should invest in the machinery that will keep the air clean for the benefit of the staff.
	We know perfectly well that the Exchequer could not bear the cost of banning smoking, which is why there will be no smoking ban. We know that prison staff could not control prisons, which is why there will be no ban on smoking in prisonsit has nothing to do with the health of the prison staff. The debate to date has reeked of hypocrisy, and we need to get some common sense and consistency into it. I urge the House to dismiss this whole package and think again.

David Clelland: I support the case for excluding private members' clubs from the ban. I am grateful to Ministers for giving all Members the opportunity to vote for a number of options, but I want to emphasise that clubs are different. That was outlined in the guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which states at paragraph 9.2:
	The 2003 Act recognises that premises, to which public access is restricted and where alcohol is supplied other than for profit, give rise to different issues for licensing law than those presented by commercial enterprises selling direct to the public.
	It says that those premises include
	Labour, Conservative and Liberal Clubs, the Royal British Legion, other ex-services clubs, working men's clubs, miners welfare institutions, social and sports clubs.
	Every one of us has several such establishments in our constituencies. The guidance acknowledges that
	the premises are considered private and not generally open to the public.
	It goes on to say:
	The Secretary of State wishes to emphasise that non-profit making clubs make an important and traditional contribution to the life of many communities in England and Wales and bring significant benefits. Their activities also take place on premises to which the public do not generally have access and they operate under codes of discipline applying to members and their guests.
	I am not a smoker, but I do not like smoke blowing in my face from smokers sitting nearby any more than anyone else does. Nor am I opposed to a ban on smoking in private members' clubs. However, I believe that the decision on whether to ban it should be for the members of that club to make. That is the important principle that I wish to pursue.
	I do not refute the health arguments, although there is a great deal of exaggeration in that regard, particularly when hon. Members accuse club members of killing their staff. That is a little over the top. As the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) pointed out, the Bill does not make smoking illegal. Smoking in private will still be legal. Unless we want to take the bull by the horns and ban smoking completely, some of the arguments smack of hypocrisy.
	We have long maintained in this country the right of people to form private clubs in which theythe membersdecide what legal activities go on. Clubs must be allowed to make those decisions for themselves and in their own time. They are democratic, non-profit-making organisations, and many of them are struggling. If this is forced upon them and they cannot make these changes in their own way and in their own time, many will close, and their staff, far from being in a smoke-free environment, will be in a work-free environment.

Hugh Bayley: We have heard that passive smoking in the workplace kills four times as many employees a year as asbestosis. My hon. Friend would not support for one minute a club that refused to remove flaking asbestos that posed a hazard to its staff. That would not be a matter for democratic decision for club membersit would have to be done. Why does he not apply the same standards to a health hazard that is more dangerous to the staff of clubs?

David Clelland: We are not considering the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, but the Health Bill. If the Government want to pursue the issue in the way that my hon. Friend suggests, the health and safety legislation should be amended. I repeat that if smoking is so lethal, it should be banned completely. What is the case for not doing that other than perhaps the case for the Revenue, which is important to any Government?

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend said that he was not opposed in principle to private members clubs banning smoking. The Secretary of State said that if an exemption were made for private members clubs, an annual vote would be insisted upon. If such a vote is held annually, should it be conducted by a postal ballot of all club members or at an annual general meeting? In the case of such a vote, should people be able to reverse the decision that they made the previous year? Should they be able to change year after year?

David Clelland: I shall consider the annual vote shortly, but I will not discuss the complexities of how the ballots should take place. That is for another day. Today, we are debating the principle of the matter.
	The licensed trade has argued that the Bill will sound the death knell of many pubs because people will move from pubs to clubs. Pubs have open access and far more freedom than clubs to introduce attractions that will bring in the public and lead to their continuing patronage. The bingo clubs and casinos claim that people will flock from them to private clubs. That is nonsense because people who patronise bingo clubs and casinos go for much bigger prizes than any working men's club could offer. They would certainly not be attracted merely by the ability to have a cigarette.
	If, as we are told, the non-smoking population is growing and the smoking population is declining, the non-smokers may migrate from the smoking to the non-smoking establishments. Banning smoking in pubs and restaurants may benefit rather than cause problems for those places. I do not therefore accept the trade's arguments. It is worried because it erroneously believes that the measure will give non-profit-making clubs an advantage. It is concerned about its profits, not anyone's health.
	The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) claimed that if exemptions were made, the Rose and Crown might turn itself into a private club. If he believes that, he does not understand the Licensing Act 2003. To become a private club, a pub has to satisfy all the conditions, including becoming a non-profit-making members' club. I do not believe that the Rose and Crown wants to be a non-profit-making establishment, so it is unlikely to become a club.
	Many clubs already take action to restrict and even ban smoking on their premises. The annual ballot, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned, will accelerate the process. They will have to consider the matter annually and I am sure that the smoking restrictions will continue. Let us not use a good Bill to erode the traditional freedoms of our private clubs and, in too many cases, threaten their existence.
	I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responds to the debate she will clarify something that the Secretary of State said earlier. My right hon. Friend appeared to imply in a radio interview this morning, and in an answer that she gave me earlier, that there will be regulations to restrict smoking in any room where there is a bar. Today is the first time that we have heard that. The letter that the Secretary of State sent to clubs when the point was first queried stated:
	we will uphold our manifesto commitment to protect employees by prohibiting smoking in the bar area.
	That is completely different. If we are to impose a ban on smoking in every room in a club where there is a bar, we may as well include clubs in the overall ban.

Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend accept that the complexity and lack of clarity to which he refers are an indication of the problems that will arise unless there is a comprehensive ban?

David Clelland: I am not sure what the lack of clarity is. Clubs are dealing with those issues as we speak. There are already restrictions on smoking in the bar area and most club members uphold them. If they do not, they will not be club members for long. Clubs discipline their members if they do not stick to the rules.
	I do not opposeand I shall supporta smoking ban in public places, but I cannot accept that we should legislate against private members' clubs in that way. It is against all our traditions. The best answer, as in so many cases, is education rather than legislation.

George Young: I want to make an extremely brief speech, as many other Members wish to speak in the debate. It was disappointing that the Secretary of State was unable to share with the House how she plans to vote on this matter. She is the Secretary of State for Health and this is one of the most important public health issues that this Parliament will debate. It would have been helpful if, under the protection of a free vote, she could have indicated to the House what her preference was among the options available to us. She said that she would listen to the debate. I have been listening to this debate for 30 years, and it would be astonishing if some new and decisive argument were to emerge in these two hours to clinch the debate one way or the other. The last time we debated this matter, she put forward a view, constrained by collective responsibility, with which we know she disagreed. Against that background, and with the protection of a free vote, it would have been helpful if she had been able to tell us her views on this occasion.
	I want to pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee. It was courageous of the Committee to confront head on a pledge in the Government's manifesto, six months after the general election. The role of the Select Committee has been decisive in this debate and it is a model of what Select Committees should do. It detected an argument that had unsound foundations, exposed it, then produced a clear, unambiguous, unanimous report that has been of enormous assistance to the House.
	I want to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), and I make no apology for raising the West Lothian question. In the Standing Committee, we had a vote on whether the distinction between pubs that serve food and those that do not should be removed. The Government won by one vote, that of a Scottish Member whose constituents will have the benefit of a comprehensive ban. His vote was decisive at that stage in ensuring that my constituents would not have the benefit of such a ban. At some point, the Government will have to address that issue, because it is going to recur time and again.
	I hope that, at the end of this debate, Parliament will send out the clear signal that smoking is a harmful activity that it wishes to discourage. My concern, however, is that we are about to remove one indefensible distinction, namely, the distinction between pubs that serve food and those that do not, with another indefensible distinction, namely, that between pubs and clubs. As the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has just explained in his excellent speech, no public health argument, no employment argument and no public nuisance argument can be used to distinguish private clubs from pubs. He also explained that the barrier between a private club and a pub is a very narrow onea 3 subscription will give access to a wide range of clubs. The tobacco industry wants a confused signal to emerge from Parliament that smoking is an activity that can be validated in certain circumstances. It would be much better to send a clear message that people can, of course, smoke in private but that smoking in a public place is something that Parliament wishes to discourage.

David Clelland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

George Young: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I want other people to get in.
	Finally, I want to make a point to my right hon. and hon. Friends who feel that there is something about being in the Conservative party that means that they should not vote for a ban. The Conservative party has a long history of taking public health seriously. Crash helmets were made compulsory for motor cyclists under a Conservative Government. Seat belts were made compulsory for rear passengers by a Conservative Government. A Conservative Government were in favour of putting fluoride in the water supply

John Bercow: And the Clean Air Act 1956.

George Young: Indeed.
	It is perfectly consistent to be a member of the Conservative party and to take public health seriously by voting for a smoking ban in public places. Of course people should have the freedom to smoke, but that freedom needs to be balanced by the freedom of other people to enjoy clean, fresh air. When the Divisions are called, I shall, without any hesitation at all, vote with the right hon. Member for Rother Valley.

Tony Wright: It is always a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). I wish that he had also mentioned the historic connection between the beer industry and the Conservative party, but apart from that he made some excellent points. I do not want to repeat them, but I want to emulate him by being brief.
	We should celebrate the fact that this matter is being decided on a free vote. That is good for Parliament. I know that we cannot resist the temptation to revert to type by teasing Ministers about this, but it is good that we should approach issues in this way and that Ministers should, quite legitimately, take different views on a matter of judgment. We cannot both celebrate the free vote and attack Ministers for doing that. The more that we can decide issues in this way, the better it will be for Parliament, and not just because it is sometimes politically convenient.
	It is a good thing that we are going to ban smoking in public places tonight, but it is extraordinary that we did not do it a long time ago. It is such an obvious public health measure and Parliament should have turned its attention to it long ago. My only dissent from what is being proposedI do not think that it will be tested in the Division Lobbyis that we could have taken a much simpler approach from the beginning. We should simply have proposed to separate the smokers from the non-smokers. The distinctions that the Government originally introduced were not sustainable. The idea that we should distinguish between pubs that served food and those that did not had no foundation in any public health argument. Nor do I believe that the distinction between pubs and clubs is sustainable. Some hon. Members have argued forcefully about the freedom involved in private members' clubs being allowed to do their own thing, but that argument is trumped by the view that basic protections should be afforded to the workers involved, and that overrides the distinction. Those workers would not have the freedom not to be exposed to other people's smoke.
	Those distinctions must fall away, but it would have been easier to carry public opinion with us on this by adopting a simpler approach, such as the introduction of some kind of physical segregation in all kinds of premises between the smoking area and the small non-smoking area. I would have imposed onerous conditions on the smoking area involving physical separation and the sealing of rooms, and allowing no children, food or drink. I might have added provisions about sophisticated ventilation equipment

Lynne Jones: And padded walls.

Tony Wright: Some people would have put in padded walls and thrown away the key.
	The approach that I have just outlined would have met the public health objectives that underpin what we are attempting to achieve, while ensuring that we retained a certain amount of freedom to exercise a legitimate activity. That approach would have carried public opinion with it. What we do tonight must have clarity and enforceability, and it must have public support. There would have been a simpler way of doing this, as I have just outlined, and we must ensure that clarity, simplicity and enforceability are at the heart of these provisions.

Christopher Chope: I wish to speak to amendment No. 6, on which I hope we shall have the chance to vote later. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) is lending his support to it. The amendment has come as quite a surprise to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, because they did not realise that the coercive powers that the Government are taking under clause 5 include the power to ban smoking in private motor vehicles. It would be wrong in principle to do such a thing, as well as totally impractical. I have yet to hear the Government offer any defence for taking this power, and, in the absence of any such defence, I hope that the whole House will support my amendment.
	I also want to address the issue of prisons. The Government line is that smoking is bad for our health and that of those around us. If that is so, why is smoking still to be allowed in prisons under the Bill? I asked the Secretary of State, in an intervention, why there was a rule about prisons that was different from the rule proposed for clubs and other licensed premises. I did not really receive an answer.

Kevin Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Chope: I will not, because the right hon. Gentleman spoke for an inordinate length of time, and I want to allow others to speak.
	The issue of smoking in prisons has been related to the issue of what a person can do in his or her own home, but there is a big distinction. At present people cannot drink alcohol in prison: thereby the Government accept that being a prisoner is different from being in an equivalent, or an extension, of one's own home.

Laurence Robertson: Prisoners cannot vote either.

Christopher Chope: That is true, although we hear that the Government want to allow it in order to try to save a few seats at the next election.
	If prisoners cannot drink alcohol, why should they be allowed to smoke? It strikes me as totally inconsistent to take freedom to smoke away from those who are not prisoners, while allowing it to remain for those who are. Apart from anything else, we know that smoking in prison is the means by which much illegal drug-taking can take place.

Anne Milton: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Christopher Chope: No, I am afraid I will not.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) referred to amendment No 8, which I support enthusiastically. It seems that those of us who feel as he does about the legislation will have to vote against new clause 5. The important point is that health and safety law already applies to secondary smoke in workplaces, and the Bill is therefore unnecessary if it is designed to look after the health and well-being of people in the workplace.
	The market is already operating to provide a range of options for the general public of smoke-free and smoke-filled premises. In a hotel, it is possible to stay in a smoke-filled bedroom or in one that is non-smoking. That shows that the market is working. The tyranny of the intolerant should not be allowed to prevail over the freedoms of the minority.
	I have never smoked, and despite the provocation from the Government, I do not intend to start now; but smoking is a legal activity. If hon. Members want to outlaw it, let us have a prohibition Bill. Until that time, let us trust the people and the market.

Alasdair McDonnell: I too will be brief, or as brief as I can be. I think we could generate an awful lot of nonsense. Perhaps I should apologise, as someone from Northern Ireland, because the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), has relieved us of responsibility: he has done the wise thing, and provided for a total ban in a few months' time. I hope that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) will allow my vote tonight in favour of a stronger ban to cancel out the irresponsible vote of someone else.
	Smoking is a killer. Smoking maims people. Smoking cripples people. There is a whole spectrum of damage that smoking cigarettessmoking tobaccodoes to people. It is the single greatest cause of serious morbidity and mortality, and one of the single greatest burdens on the national health service owing to the illness that it causes. Others have spoken on the subject, and I do not want to go into the details of the damage to lungs, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema. Smoking does even more damage to the cardiovascular system. There is brain damage, stroke damage and all the rest. We could split hairs on whether we stop that a little bit, a bigger bit or completely, which is as far as we can go. By completely I mean stopping smoking in public places completely; I do not accept that there can be an absolute ban on smoking, although I should like to see the day when that might happen.
	Excuses are being made in relation to private spaces: clubs, private homes and vehicles. I do not think that anyone would suggest that people should be allowed to grow cannabis in their private homes or private spaces, and put it to whatever use they like, including the corruption of younger people. The reality is that smoking is damaging, and we in the House have a responsibility to ensure that the amount of damage it is allowed to do is limited.
	Apart from the damage that smoking does to people, the cost to the national health service is awful. Smoking is crippling the NHS. As a result of the smoking that has taken place over the past 25 or 30 years, we shall have a legacya mortgageof debt hanging over us for the next 30 years, until we remove smoking, reduce smoking or control smoking.
	Before I came to the House I was a GP. Smoking, the damage done by it and the challenges involved in stopping presented me with one of my own greatest challenges. Trying to stop smoking is a difficult issue: it all comes down to individuals. A GP can do anything he likes to help people, but the biggest pitfall is what happens on a Friday or a Saturday night, or at the football match at the weekend. When there is a social occasion, people slip back on to the cigarettes. We must ensure that we give those people as much support as possible.
	The southern Irish experience has been extremely positive. Faults can be found in it: there are breaches of the law, and people stand outside bars smokingbut even that has turned into a benefit, because matches are now being made outside the pub rather than inside. There is a smokers' club outside the door. Let us be serious, however. The Irish experience has worked. Smoking is down, and good public health is rising. It will be many years before that shows its full benefit, but I appeal to Members for God's sake to give people a chance. People are struggling to give up cigarettes. Most sensible people who are smokers want to stop smoking, and want us to help them to stop. We should not put any further obstacles or difficulties in their way.

Richard Taylor: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell), another member of the medical profession.
	I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who chaired the Health Committee while it produced two extremely strong and useful reports. I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State has returned. She said that she had not yet made up her mind. I am rather more naive than the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), and I believe that we could persuade some Members who have the luxury of a free vote to change their mind.
	I speak as unofficial, unappointed, unelected medical adviser to the House. Even the youngest Members may have the beginning of coronary artery atheroma, that terrible condition that narrows the coronary arteries and leads relentlessly to heart attacks, usually in later life but often in relative youth. I think everyone knows that the risk factors we recognise are smoking, diabetes, a poor family history and hypertension; but we all know people in none of those categories who, out of the blue, have dropped dead of a heart attack, or have had a severe heart attack. Without those risk factors, each one of us could be sitting on our own particular time bomb.
	Those of us who have reached my age do not play squash and the like because it is known that sudden exertion is one of the precipitating factors, but it is not generally known that passive smoking is also an acute precipitating factor. The atheroma builds up over the years. We have in our blood things called platelets, which normally help the blood to clot in the right place; but, according to a booklet from the Royal College of Physicians,
	Platelets are very sensitive to the effects of tobacco smoke, and experimental studies have shown that smoking one or two cigarettes per day has a similar effect on platelet aggregation to that seen in non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke for 20 minutes.
	Platelets aggregate. They lump together. They increase the atheroma, increase the blockage, and possibly cause a complete occlusion. As has been said, the risks of cancer of the lung are linear, but that does not apply to the risks of coronary artery disease. So the ban on smoking in public places must be extended to all workplaces. It is no good saying that 99 per cent., or even 99.9 per cent., of people are protected; the last fraction of a per cent. deserve equal protection.
	I want briefly to consider particulatesthe tiny bits held in the smoke exhaled by smokers and, even worse, in the side-stream smoke that drifts away from the end of a cigarette as the smoker wafts it casually in the hand. A particle labelled as PM2.5the label denotes its size, which is 2.5 micronscan get right into the lungs and is responsible for a lot of damage. Dr. Richard Edwards, a senior lecturer in public health from Manchester, told the Health Committee on 20 October about a study in the north-west that compared the level of PM2.5 found on heavy traffic roads with that found in smoky pubs. Some 20 to 50 micrograms per cu m were found on heavy traffic roads, but 1,400 micrograms per cu m were found in smoky pubs28 times the former level. He concluded:
	So when you are talking about exposure from particles which are known to affect health, and there are plenty of studies to show that particulate matter affects health, some of the places where you get the very greatest exposure is in the indoor environment in smoky pubs.
	If we exempt clubs, we will drive smokers to them and they will become even more lethal.

Howard Stoate: I am very grateful to my esteemed medical colleague for giving way on this important point. Does he therefore agree that because ventilation systems cannot remove these particulates in sufficient quantities, simply ventilating a pub's atmosphere will not reduce them to a safe level? He is therefore right to say that a total ban is the only credible way forward.

Richard Taylor: I thank my hon. FriendI will call him my hon. Friend, even though he is on the other side of the Housefor that intervention, with which I entirely agree. The Health Committee heard conclusive evidence to suggest that it is not possible to ventilate pubs in an affordable way. The comparison was made with operating theatres, but they have air conditioning systems with positive pressure, which blows everything out to prevent germs from coming in. Such a system cannot be replicated in pubs and clubs.
	I conclude with two quotes. When, at last November's Britain against cancer conference, the head of Glasgow university's centre for oncology was asked what his single greatest wish was in respect of cancer prevention, he said:
	The key long-term priority is to limit smokingeverything else is lip service.
	Professor Dame Carol Black, the president of the Royal College of Physicians, told the Health Committee:
	There is nothing that this government could do for health that would be better than to actually bring in this ban, absolutely nothing.

John Grogan: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor); I was feeling quite healthy until he spoke.
	Once in a political generation, one gets the chance, if one is lucky enough to sit on these Benches, to vote for a public health measure that will affect the health ofthousandsperhaps hundreds of thousandsof members of our society. As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) reminded us, no political party in this House has a monopoly on such measures. I am thinking here of the public health Acts of the 19th century, of the sewerage legislation, and of the clean air legislation of the 1950s and 1960s. The most successful of the Acts passed by our predecessors ended discussion about that topic for a generation. The legislation was clear and simple and it established a political settlement. We have a similar opportunity before us today.
	I share the ambition of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest to persuade the Secretary of State to go that little bit further and to complete what is unfinished business. I hope to speak directly to her today, because the issue is clubs against pubs: should we extend the ban to members' clubs, as well as pubs? We have heard that 150,000 people, if not more, work in members' clubs, and I have always felt that the health of a bar worker in a club is every bit as important as that of a bar worker in a pub. Some Members have suggested that perhaps bar workers should change jobs if they do not like the premises that they work in. That shows a lack of understanding of the bars and clubs in our communities. In some communities, it is not easy for such workers to get another job.

Jim Sheridan: Much has been made of the employee's ability to choose whether or not to work in a pub or a club. If private clubs are excluded from this legislation, when someone who is offered a job in a club refuses to take it, they would rightly be denied any social security benefits whatsoever. So where is the choice?

John Grogan: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The House has a responsibility to provide some certainty tonight. If we exempt clubs, we will be faced with years of legal action. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights suggested that if we distinguish between members' clubs and pubs, we may face legal action from bar workers in clubs, trade unions and so on. Businesses and clubs need certainty.
	I have been telephoned, in my role as chairman of the all-party group on beer, by licensees from all over the country. I shall give just two examples, which happen to come from Doncaster and Leicester. The licensee of the Rockingham Arms, in Doncaster, told me that his pub is opposite the Comrades club, which is a social club near Doncaster race course, and that all he wants is a fair bat and ballthe chance to compete with it on equal terms. Of course, many of his regulars are also members of the club. We have to face the fact that the likely flow of traffic will be smokers shifting from pubs to the clubs of which they are a member. If we pass an exemption for clubs in this House tonight, it will constitute a St. Valentine's day massacre of many pubs. Pubs will close up and down the land and Members will have to face not just their licensees, but the darts team and the football team that has nowhere to go. Some pub charity Christmas raffles will no longer take place. Pubs are a vital part of our local community.

Laurence Robertson: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the logical conclusion of his argument, which is that there is great demand for pubs in which people can smoke?

John Grogan: On health and safety grounds alone, we must face the reality of the situation. According to an American study, a non-smoking bar worker in a pub has a 20 times greater risk of developing cancer than a non-smoking bar worker in a non-smoking environment. We must be cognisant of that fact.
	I want to address the remarks made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), in case I can persuade him, as well as my own Front Benchers, of my argument. I have always regarded him as the epitome of modern Conservatism, which involves a belief in simple regulation and market forces. It therefore beggars belief that he is advocating a very complicated regulatory system involving local authority inspectors visiting clubs to see whether children are present, and which will lead to many of our pubs being unable to compete on equal terms with clubs.

Martin Horwood: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree, however, with the Royal College of Physicians that one answer to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson)my constituency neighbouris that a truly comprehensive ban would reduce demand for smoking overall? The RCP pointed out that the comprehensive ban in Ireland led to a
	statistically significant increase in the percentage of smokers who banned smoking in their own homes after the smoke-free law was introduced.
	So the more comprehensive the ban, the fewer the people who smoke, even at home, which is outside the scope of the ban.

John Grogan: We all know people who, having given up smoking, are tempted to start again every time that they go into a club or a pub. In Dublin and elsewhere in Ireland, the number of households with a smoker has decreased considerably since the ban was imposed. So I appeal to all Members to go the extra step and pass a historic public health measure that bans smoking in all workplaces. I appeal especially to my hon. Friends, who have an instinct towards public health and the protection of staff. Do they really want to go back to their constituencies and say that on one of the only genuinely free votes that we are likely to have in this Parliament, they took the advice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defencesomeone for whom I have great respect? I urge hon. Members to vote for a comprehensive ban and a smoke-free England.

John Hemming: I have thrown away my speech and will aim to speak for less than five minutes. We need to focus on one point. It is accepted that secondary smoke is dangerous. Workers need to be protected from that, so a comprehensive ban is necessary. However, we also accept that workers will be exposed to some secondary smoke, when they go outside pubs to collect the glasses.
	Amendment No. 10 is a probing amendment to see whether the Government wish to consider whether it is possible to license, through local authorities, roomsI accept that it is not possible to ventilate a whole pubthat could be ventilated to keep the level of secondary smoke below that outside the pub. Apart from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), we accept that people will smoke outside pubs, in the gardens. The question is whether it is possible to bring the level of secondary smoke in a room in the pub below the level found outside.
	Unintended consequences will arise from a comprehensive ban. The evidence from Ireland is that the consumption of tobacco fell by some 5 per cent. as a result of the ban. The actual fall was some 9 or 10 per cent. but the trend is downwards anyway. However, smoking is still going on somewhere. By introducing the ban we will move people around, but we will mostly not stop people smoking. If we could achieve a situation in which the concentration of secondary smoke in the atmosphere is below a certain level under certain circumstancesas we accept it will be outside the pubwhy not allow smoking rooms, on a licensed basis, within the pub?

Hugh Bayley: In November, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and said that I could not in conscience support the then Government position of a partial ban that would not allow smoking in licensed premises where food was served. I sent a copy to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. I congratulate both of them on the decision that we should have a free vote on an issue that may be the most important public health decision that will be made by the Government in this Parliament.
	I have tried to assess the number of lives that could be lost if we had a partial rather than a full ban. The Jamrozik article in the British Medical Journal, mentioned by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), states that 617 people die from passive smoking in the workplace each year on average and that some 54 of them work in the hospitality industry. If around one in three licensed premises were exempt from a smoking ban, around 20 people would lose their lives every year. That loss of life can be avoided if we choose a full ban.
	I have spoken to the Health and Safety Executive to try to make comparisons with other industrial hazards. Some 37 people die each year from falling from a great height, such as building workers falling from inadequately erected scaffolding. A club would not use the freedom of individual members to make a decision to agree to save money by putting up faulty scaffolding, thus putting at risk the lives of people who work for that club. They should not do the same with their employees by permitting smoking to continue.
	On the railways, seven workers died in line-side accidents in the most recent year for which I have been able to obtain figures. One would not say that wearing an orange bib and abiding by the railway inspectorate's safety regulations should be a matter of personal choice for a railway company or employee. We have health and safety rules to protect people, and we should protect people working in private clubs in the same way as we propose to protect those working in other licensed premises, such as restaurants and pubs.
	To those private clubs that wish to retain the right for people to smokeby no means all of them, since two private bingo clubs in my constituency have asked me to support a comprehensive banI would say that they will put off more people coming in through the smoky atmosphere than will be encouraged in by permitting smoking. The legal pressures that are likely to come on club committee members from the families of employees who suffer illness or death as a result of passive smoking should make them think again. I urge all hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, to choose a consistent policy, protect employees in restaurants, pubs and clubs in the same way, and vote for amendments (a), (b), (c) and (d).

Laurence Robertson: Amendment No. 36 accepts that there may be a case for banning smoking in certain public places, but excludes pubs, restaurants and clubs and, indeed, the home. I declare that I am a smoker, but I consider myself to be a considerate smoker. I would not want to smoke in anyone's car, house or office, or even in their company, unless they were happy with that or smoked themselves. It is because I am a considerate smoker that I find the proposed measures intolerant, not to mention illiberal and belonging to the nanny state.
	I understand the right of people not to inhale the smoke that I exhale, but there is no reason why the rights of both smokers and non-smokers cannot be accommodated. We already have non-smoking pubs springing up all over the place: there are some in my constituency. We have many pubs that are mixed, with smoking areas and non-smoking areas, and we have pubs that are smoking throughout. We hear from hon. Members on both sides that there is a great demand for non-smoking pubs, and if that is so, the free market, which I thought new Labour believed in these days, will deliver those pubs and everybody will be happy.
	It is my contention that the person best placed to decide whether or not to have smoking in his establishment is the pub landlord or the restaurateur, with due regard to his staff and customers. I do not accept that a ban would not lead to an increase in smoking at home, and I am disappointed that so much concern is rightly expressed for the welfare and health of workers, but that few of those who make such protestations have talked about the rights of children in the home. Are they not to be protected? I am convinced that more people will smoke at home than at present, but we do not seek to protect the rights of children.

Jim Devine: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Laurence Robertson: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
	Many staff in pubs smoke themselves and many small country pubs will be threatened by the ban. We hear, especially from Labour Members who oppose an exemption for private clubs, that people will flock from the pubs into such clubs. The logical conclusion of that argument is that there is a great demand for pubs that allow smoking, and many of them are small pubs in country areas. Along with the post offices and shops in country areas, they will be under threat. The landlord and landlady of the local inn in my home village of Twyning both smoke. They do not employ any staff, so why should they be covered by the ban? That would be totally intolerant.
	The logical conclusion of the health argument is that the Government should ban smoking altogether. Smoking-related diseases cost the NHS 1.8 billion year. That is a fair amount, but rather insignificant when compared with the 8.1 billion that smokers put into the Exchequer every year. That explains the Government's hypocrisy in refusing to ban smoking entirelyit is due to money.
	Of course I share concerns about staff who work in smoky establishments when they do not want to. However, jobs in the catering industry are very difficult to fill. That is why so many illegal immigrants are employed in catering. Other people have the option to go and work elsewhere. We talk about people working in smoky atmospheres, but what about those who work in coal mines or with dangerous chemicals or hazardous waste? Those problems have all been ignored today, and that is because they are difficult to deal with. However, if we were being consistent, we would be considering them as well.
	I have been asked to keep my remarks brief[Interruption.] It is a pity that Labour Members did not do the same and that their arguments were not more consistent. I shall end by saying that this is a very illiberal and totally unnecessary measure. We can protect people's health without this draconian legislation.
	I shall vote against the new clause. If we get that far, I hope that the House will vote for amendment No. 36, which is far more tolerant.

Caroline Flint: It has been quite a journey over the past eight months or so. This afternoon's debate has paralleled the discussion of the matter that has gone on in the public domain over that period. Speeches have been made by the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), the right hon. Member for New Hampshire[Interruption.] I mean the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), the hon. Members for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) and for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), and my hon. Friends the Members for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and for City of York (Hugh Bayley) all argued that the legislation on restricting smoking in public places should go as far as tonight's votes allow.
	However, my hon. Friends the Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) and for Tyne Bridge (Mr.Clelland), and the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), all felt that there should be more compromise on the matter. If I heard them correctly, the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and for Tewkesbury (Mr.   Robertson) said that there should not be legislation in this area at all.
	This is an historic debate. We are celebrating this week the 100th anniversary of the parliamentary Labour party. It is fair to say that many of the most challenging pieces of health legislation over the past century have been introduced in the short periods of Labour government. We hope to serve for much longer in the 21st century, but I am pleased and proud to be here this evening to endorse and put into law for the first time proposals that will restrict smoking in public places. As far as I am aware, the Opposition, despite what they say, had no intention of introducing similar measures if they had won the general election.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend has described the long path that we have followed over the past decade and more. Is she aware that it is 40 years since the lead story in the Daily Mirror was headlined Shock plan to ban smoking in public? There was a Labour Government at the time, and there have been at least two others in our progress to this point. It is an historic matter to get from that headline to the public health improvements that the Bill will secure.

Caroline Flint: It is another triumph of this new Labour Government.
	I turn now to the specifics of the amendments. Amendment (b) deals with specialist tobacconists, for which I said in Committee I was minded to include an exemption. However, that should be tackled in regulations. I reject amendment No. 8, which would remove clauses 1 to 12, as that would effectively kill the premise on which the Bill is based. The view of the public is increasingly that we should take legal measures to restrict smoking in public places.
	The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned prisons. We are working with the Home Office to determine how to make progress in that respect, but I remind the House that some prisons are smoke-free. Prisons are places of detainment and also residence, so we must strike a balance.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley tabled amendment No. 10, which would permit local authorities to license and designate premises. The Government believe that a piecemeal approach is inappropriate, as we want a national approach to creating smoke-free places. That is the ideal, but I give credit to those local authorities around the country who have campaigned strongly and made their views known to the Government.
	Several hon. Members spoke about amendment No. 6, which deals with private vehicles. Six Standing Committee sittings were devoted to the smoking parts of the Bill, and I made it clear that there was no intention to require vehicles in exclusively private use to be smoke-free. Clause 5(2)(d) makes provision for regulations that may exempt classes of vehicles, including private or rental cars hired for private use. The Bill's regulation-making powers are more than adequate to exempt vehicles for private use.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint: No, but the hon. Gentleman can see me later. We can talk about the regulations. [Laughter.]
	Amendment No. 36 is hard to understand. It seems to be intended to limit the premises that may be exempted from smoke-free legislation to those where a person has his home, or licensed premises and membership clubs. I am worried that it would remove the general regulation-making power in clause 3(1), which takes account of the fact that people who, for example, work on oil rigs are not able to smoke outdoors for reasons of safety. Likewise, if the amendment were adopted, no exemption could be made for laboratories concerned with testing tobacco products. That would mean that the tobacco companies would not be able to test their products, as the law requires.
	Government amendment No. 24 extends the fixed-penalty notice provisions in part 1 of the Bill to the offence of failing to display no-smoking signs, in accordance with the requirements set out in regulations. However, in light of the responses that we received last year, we will add the option of a fixed-penalty notice for the offence of failing to display those signs.
	After the debate in Committee, and as a result of lobbying from various organisations and groups, I am minded to propose that the fines for failing to display no-smoking signs should be raised from a maximum of 200 to a fine not exceeding level 3, which has a maximum of 1,000. I propose to raise the fine for the offence of failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free places from a maximum of 200 to a maximum of 2,500. That sends the strong message to those responsible for enforcing the law that they should make sure that they do so.
	The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire tabled amendment (i), aimed at protecting children from second-hand smoke in private members' clubs. However, I am perplexed by his argument: first he said that the members of those clubs should be able to decide what happens in their space, but then his amendment seemed to want to tell parents what they should do with their children in those private spaces. That is another demonstration of how the Conservatives are all over the place on this issue.
	I shall finish by recapping on how the new clause and our amendments will work and the choice they offer Members[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it increasingly difficult to hear the Minister against the buzz of conversation, which seems to be growing by the minute. May we please listen to the Minister in the last few minutes of the debate?

Caroline Flint: Conservative Members were shouting, Boring; I suppose that it is boring to try to save lives[Hon. Members: Oh!] I thought that we were in a new Cameron era that was not about yah-boo politics, but there we go.
	We have heard a wide range of arguments about the merits of the various options that the Government have proposed in the new clause and the amendments. I hope that the second reading of new clause 5 will be a formality. We shall then turn to the amendments to the new clause. As it stands, the new clause allows exemptions for membership clubs but not for licensed premises. Members who believe that private members' clubs should also be smoke-free should vote to accept the amendments tabled in my name. Those who want them to be exempted should vote against.
	Once the amendments to the new clause have been dealt with, we shall vote on the new clause itself, either as drafted or as amended. Regardless of any amendments that may be passed, the main point of the new clause is to prevent any exemption for licensed premises so if Members believe that all pubs, bars, nightclubs and so on should be smoke-free, they should vote for new clause 5. However, if they support clause 3, they should vote against it. Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21 are consequential to new clause 5.
	The debate has represented a huge range of views on both sides of the House and has reflected the views held by the public.

Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend explain whether the Government's definition of substantially enclosed would include the outside areas of an establishment that served food and drink?

Caroline Flint: We discussed that issue in Committee, and it was felt that it could be dealt with in regulations. We considered whether some areasfor example, the concourse of a railway terminuswhich are substantially but not wholly enclosed, should be smoke-free. There are other examples, but we felt it right that such issues should be sorted out through regulation. They have been raised with me and others, and we shall look at them case by case.

Andrew Lansley: Will the Minister give an undertaking that regulations made under subsection (2) of the new clause, which defines enclosed and substantially enclosed, should be made by the affirmative rather than the negative procedure?

Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman raised points about substantially enclosed and semi-enclosed premises in Committee, and I am still considering whether some of those areas, including vehicles, should be subject to affirmative resolution. We shall hold full public consultation on all aspects of the regulations, so there will be a chance for everybody in the House and outside to make their views known.
	This week, we launched a new advertising campaign to show the impact of smoking on people's lives, especially the relatives of smokers. I am grateful that Trudi and her daughters were willing to take part in our campaign. Trudi is dying from lung cancer and, with her daughters of 17 and 11, is already making plans for her funeral. It is important that we realise that smoking affects not only the individual who smokes but those who have to breathe in their smoke as well as those who suffer the devastation of losing someone because of a smoking-related illness.
	The adverts are harrowing and challenging, but alongside them we have launched a series of adverts to bring to our screens examples of two ordinary people who have taken up the NHS stop smoking services, which have never previously been available in that form. The Government realise that the issue is not simply about restrictions in public places, but about providing our health service with funds to help people give up in difficult circumstances, because for many of them smoking is an addiction.
	I am proud that since 1997 we have not only taken measures to control cigarette advertising but, for the first time, provided, through the health service, opportunities for people to give up not just once but to try again if they fail. Today, we are debating legislation that will make a huge contribution to the public health of our nation. If the Bill is successful in the other place, I look forward to working with every Member of the House to ensure that in every constituency, there will be opportunities for people to take advantage of the restrictions to make choices about changing their smoking habits that will affect not just them but everybody they work or live with and everyone they care for.
	Most Members share that aim and there is no doubt that our debates over the past eight months have contributed to a huge public debate, which is good. Often, there is not much discussion in the public domain of what we do in this place, so if that is a sign of positive democracy it is to be welcomed.
	However, the task does not end with passing the Bill and introducing restrictions; 95 per cent. of deaths from cancer are among people exposed to smoking in the home. The Bill is not the end of something, but the start of trying to persuade smokers to give up and to give them every possible support.
	I am pleased that Members on the Opposition Front Benches have moved on the issue[Interruption.] The Tory manifesto was against bringing in legislation, so there has been another period of reflection and consultation. It is always pleasing when the Tories chase Labour to catch up on progressive politics.

Andrew Lansley: Our manifesto was clear. We wanted a voluntary, self-regulatory solution but with legislative back-up, so it actually presaged legislation on our part.

Caroline Flint: A voluntary self-regulation system. We have heard it from the hon. Gentleman's own mouth.
	Tonight, we have the opportunity to do the right thing, to do the Labour thing: to vote for health and progress, to show that the Labour Government are always at the forefront of issues that mean something to everybody in the country. As it is 14 February, I wish everyone a happy Valentine's day. If they smoke and they love someone, give up

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	The House divided: Ayes 453, Noes 125.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the remaining Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (a), in line 9, leave out paragraph (b).[Caroline Flint.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 384, Noes 184.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Amendments made: (b), in line 13, after first 'of' insert '(a)'.
	(c), in line 15, at end insert
	'(b)   premises in respect of which a club premises certificate (within the meaning of section 60 of that Act) has effect.'
	(d), in line 19, leave out subsection (5).[Caroline Flint.]
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause, as amended, be added to the Bill:
	The House divided: Ayes 413, Noes 129.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

New Clause 6
	  
	Power to amend age for sale of tobacco etc

'The Secretary of State may from time to time by order amend the following enactments by substituting, in each place where a person's age is specified, a different age specified in the order
	(a)   section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933(c. 12) (sale of tobacco etc to persons under 16),
	(b)   section 4 of the Children and Young Persons (Protectionfrom Tobacco) Act 1991 (c. 23) (display of warningstatements in retail premises and on vending machines).
	(2)   But the age specified in an order under subsection (1) may not be lower than 16.'. [Caroline Flint.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 2
	  
	Smoke-free premises

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 2, line 25, leave out 'Section 3' and insert
	'Section (Smoke-free premises: exemptions)'.[Caroline Flint.]

Clause 3
	  
	Exemptions

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 2, line 30, leave out Clause 3.[Caroline Flint.]

Clause 7
	  
	Offence of smoking in smoke-free place

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 5, line 31, leave out '3' and insert
	'(Smoke-free premises: exemptions)'.
	No. 20, in page 5, line 31, leave out '3' and insert '(Smoke-free premises: exemptions)'.[Caroline Flint.]

Clause 8
	  
	Fixed penalties for offence of smoking insmoke-free place

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 6, line 3, after 'section' insert '6(5) or'.[Caroline Flint.]
	Ordered,
	That Clause No. 8 be transferred to end of line 38 on page 6. [Caroline Flint.]

New Clause 7
	  
	Enforcement

'In section 108 of the Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67) (enforcement in England and Wales)
	(a)   in subsection (1), at the beginning insert Subject to the provisions of subsection (6C) of this section,,
	(b)   after subsection (6) insert
	(6A)   The Pharmaceutical Society shall be under a duty, concurrently with the appropriate Minister, to enforce the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) of section 72A of this Act in their application to England and Wales.
	(6B)   The Pharmaceutical Society shall be under a duty to enforce the other provisions of section 72A of this Act, and any regulations made under them, in their application to England and Wales.
	(6C)   The appropriate Minister shall be under no duty to enforce those other provisions, or any regulations made under them, in their application to England and Wales.
	(6D)   Notwithstanding subsection (6C) of this section the appropriate Minister is to be treated for the purposes of sections 111 to 114 of this Act
	(a)   as empowered by this section to enforce those other provisions, or any regulations made under them, in their application to England and Wales, and
	(b)   to that extent as an enforcement authority in relation to those other provisions or those regulations in their application to England and Wales.,
	(c)   in subsection (9)(a), after hospital insert (except in relation to so much of the hospital premises as is a registered pharmacy),
	(d)   in subsection (10), for (4) to (8) substitute (4) to (6A), (7) and (8).
	(2)   In section 109 of the Medicines Act 1968 (c.67) (enforcement in Scotland), in subsection (1), at the beginning insert Subject to the provisions of section 108(6C) of this Act as applied by subsection (2) of this section,.
	(3)   In section 110 of the Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67) (enforcement in Northern Ireland)
	(a)   in subsection (1), for subsection (4) substitute subsections (3C) and (4),
	(b)   after subsection (3) insert
	(3A)   The Pharmaceutical Society shall be under a duty, concurrently with the Minister, to enforce the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) of section 72A of this Act in their application to Northern Ireland.
	(3B)   The Pharmaceutical Society shall be under a duty to enforce the other provisions of section 72A of this Act, and any regulations made under them, in their application to Northern Ireland.
	(3C)   The Minister shall be under no duty to enforce those other provisions, or any regulations made under them, in their application to Northern Ireland.
	(3D)   Notwithstanding subsection (3C) of this section the Minister is to be treated for the purposes of sections 111 to 114 of this Act
	(a)   as empowered by this section to enforce those other provisions, or any regulations made under them, in their application to Northern Ireland, and
	(b)   to that extent as an enforcement authority in relation to those other provisions or those regulations in their application to Northern Ireland.,
	(c)   in subsection (5)(a), for and (3) substitute to (3D),
	(d)   in subsection (5)(b), for (4) to (8) substitute (4) to (6A), (7) and (8).'. [Jane Kennedy.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Jane Kennedy: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 25, 30 to 32 and 26.

Jane Kennedy: We come to a number of minor and consequential amendments. I know that there will be interest in later debates, so I hope we need not spend too long on them but my experience in Committee was that Opposition Members liked a brief Government explanation of the purpose of amendments.
	New clause 7 and amendments Nos. 30 to 32 have a simple objective: to ensure full and proper enforcement of the responsible pharmacist provisions. They do so by placing a specific duty on the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland to enforce those elements of section 72A of the Medicines Act 1968 that are not subject to an offence as a matter of professional misconduct.
	Clause 28, by inserting a new section 72A into the Medicines Act 1968, sets out the detailed provisions in respect of the responsible pharmacist. We debated this at some length in Committee. The responsible pharmacist has a statutory duty to ensure the safe and effective running of the pharmacy for which he or she is responsible. Breach of certain conditions in respect of the responsible pharmacist is an offence, such as the failure to keep a record of who is the responsible pharmacist for a pharmacy at all times.
	Other aspects of the responsible pharmacist requirements are less clear. For example, it is less clear where responsibility lies for the content of the standard operating procedures and how those requirements would be enforced. These more readily lend themselves to enforcement by the pharmaceutical societies through professional regulation. The amendments make it clear on the face of the Bill that the pharmaceutical societies have that duty of enforcement, and that it applies wherever the registered pharmacy is located, whether in a hospital or in the community. Furthermore, the amendments to sections 108 for England and Wales, 109 for Scotland and 110 for Northern Ireland of the Medicines Act clarify that the appropriate Minister in those areas does not have a duty to enforce those provisions that are not subject to offences. However, they give the appropriate Minister a right of entry to inspect and investigate in relation to the other provisions in section 72A.
	Amendment No. 25 on controlled drugs is minor and technical. Amendment No. 26 on ophthalmic services is a minor and consequential amendment. With those few words of introduction, I hope that the House will be minded to accept the amendments, so that we can move on and spend longer on the more pressing debates later.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 13
	  
	Code of practice relating to health care associated infections

Andrew Murrison: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 9, line 18, at end insert
	'(c)   require the nomination in each NHS Trust of a Trust Director responsible for cleanliness and health care associated infection control (the Trust Director);
	(d)   provide for the senior infection control nurse to report directly to the Trust Director;
	(e)   indicate action to be taken by the Trust Director and Trust Board in respect of ward closures on receipt of an adverse report from the senior infection control nurse;
	(f)   require pre- and post-discharge surveillance for a person undergoing a surgical procedure;
	(g)   contain requirements relating to infection control nurses;
	(h)   contain requirements relating to isolation facilities;
	(i)   define standards relating to cleaning services;
	(j)   require hospital infection data to be recorded by clinical department.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 35, in page 9, line 18, at end insert
	'(   )   require all medical staff who have direct contact with patients not to travel to and from work in work uniform.'.
	No. 37, in page 9, line 18, at end insert
	'(   )   define standards relating to the home laundering of staff uniforms.'.

Andrew Murrison: I think that the Minister was expecting me to hold forth on the previous group of amendments and I am sorry, especially after our experience in Committee, to disappoint her on this occasion, but it is Valentine's day, after all.
	This is an important group of amendments. We discussed health care-acquired infections, particularly MRSA, at some length in Committee, though we were disappointed that the time available did not allow us to explore as fully as we would have liked all the clauses following those related to the ban on smoking. Nevertheless, we covered a great deal of ground.
	The Minister is, I expect, acutely aware of the toll that health care-acquired infections take in the United Kingdom. We reckon that about 5,000 people are killed every year and the statisticians tell us that that is more than the number killed on our roads, so it is a substantial problem. In addition, there are the people whose recovery is impeded as a result of health care-acquired infections but who, fortunately, do recover. The cost to the national health service is enormous. Some estimate that it is around 1 billion a year, so this is a big issue, and it is appropriate that Ministers should take the opportunity to try to improve matters in the course of the Health Bill.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the words that he has just uttered. Is there not a third category of people who need hospital treatmentI am thinking of elderly people in particularbut who are very worried about the reports that they read about MRSA and other hospital-acquired infections? Such people may not pick up any infections, but the stress and strain they undergo as they await their hospital appointment is often intolerable.

Andrew Murrison: My hon. Friend is correct. Like me, he will have had constituency experience of the worry involved. People who face the possibility of going to hospital often volunteer the fact that they are worried about it. As I pointed out in Committee, I usually go to some lengths to put the matter in some sort of perspective. Although it is a substantial problemI hope that the figures that I have given underscore thatthe chances of somebody succumbing to such an infection are small. It is important for those of us who try to be responsible to try to reassure people wherever we can.
	The figures speak for themselves, however, and in public health terms, 5,000 deaths a year are significant, so Ministers need to address the problem as a matter of urgency. The way in which they have chosen to do that is to introduce a code. In Committee, we were not particularly happy with the draft code, of which we were heavily critical. I am more than happy to tell the Minister that the version that has been provided more recentlyvery recently, I have to say; it was placed in the Library unheralded and unannounced yesterday, where we found itis an improvement, and I am grateful for it. When we met a little while ago, the Minister said that she would let hon. Members have the revised copy as soon as possible, and she has at least given us sight of it before this debate. We must be thankful for that, although it would have been nice to have had the opportunity to examine it more closely and at a more leisurely rate.
	Last week, we saw some updated figures for MRSA bacteraemia, of which the Minister will be well aware. The raw data for the six-month reference periods since 2001 run at 3,616, 3,584, 3,749 and 3,525. The figure for April to September 2005 is 3,580. The best interpretation of those figures is that there has been little or no change during that period; the level seems to have been pretty well flat-lining. The overall rate per thousand bed days is not entirely clear from the data, only in so far as it is specific for individual trusts. The overall rate for the health service is a little opaque. On the basis of eye-balling the results from trusts, I suspect that the overall rate per thousand bed days would probably give a worse impression of our success or otherwise with MRSA than the raw data that I have just quoted. Sadly, my statistical skills are not quite what they were, so I struggled with the figures presented to me by the Health Protection Agency, but I believe that that is a fair reflection.
	The disparity between trusts that is apparent from the Health Protection Agency data is grounds for alarm but also hope, because it suggests that health care-acquired infection, and MRSA in particular, can be controlled. For example, the fact that Cambridgeshire and Yorkshire can do so well against the record in Somerset and London suggests that infection rates will be reduced by the adoption of best practice. Presumably, that is why the Minister has introduced the code, which is the burden of part 2, and it is also certainly the reason for our insistence that the code should be robust.
	The question is whether the code is robust. In the short period that we have had to examine it, we have formed the view that while it is better than the draft version, it is not quite as robust as we might have liked. On comparing amendment No. 12 and what we have said in Committee with what has transpired, we have found bits that we would commend and that improve the original draft, on which we congratulate the Minister, although we are disappointed by some elements.
	We were pleased to note that one or two of the elements in amendment No. 12 have been reflected. Notably, there are improved lines of accountability, but we note that there is no categorical mention of a board member with specific responsibility for health care-acquired infection control. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point, as we felt that it was important to nominate at board level somebody with specific responsibility for the matter, perhaps among other duties, and to whom those who carried out hospital policy on health care-acquired infection were responsible. That board-level responsibility is not entirely clear, although we accept that some of the changes in the revised code would improve the prominence of health care-acquired infections at such a level.
	We have also noted that the code now refers to pre-admission screening, which we said in Committee was important, as the Minister will remember. Indeed, there is also some reference to post-discharge surveillance in certain circumstances. I imagine that that has been informed by the University College hospital work in the area, which I am happy to say has found its way into the revised draft code.
	Other good things have appeared, such as a strong reference to occupational health in hospitals. I freely admit to my interest in the matter, as before I was elected I was a locum consultant occupational physician at the Gloucestershire Royal hospital, so I have a particular interest in occupational health. I am convinced that the health service has traditionally not done particularly well on occupational health, and I am pleased that it has a relatively high prominence in the revised code.
	I struggled to find much reference to dealing with locum casual and agency staff in the health service. It relies heavily on such personnel, so it is important that any occupational health service captures them adequately. My experience as a locum is that people often simply come and go, and that occupational health and any control mechanisms do not touch them at all. It is important that we deal specifically with such staff. As I said in CommitteeI was perhaps rather too graphicwe do not want any Typhoid Marys wandering around the health service, potentially spreading infection through bad practice or whatever. That is an omission from the code, and perhaps the Minister could reflect on it in her remarks.
	We remain concerned about the lack of clear standards relating to a model cleaning contract, a point that we raised in Committee. Despite the strengthening of lines of accountability that I have mentioned, we are concerned about the fact that managers are still not clearly and indisputably in charge of everything that happens at ward level. I know that the Minister will regard that as a constant Opposition refrain, but we believe in it strongly. Our experience suggests that we need proper control of what goes on at ward level, and we believe that cleanliness and hospital-acquired infections are all rolled up with the lack of control that sometimes exists in our national health service.
	We regret very much the lack of reporting of health care-acquired infections at departmental level. The Minister will remember that we spent some time on these matters, and that I described my personal experience of them. As I recall, we had a slightly light-hearted debate about the cleanliness of doctors' hospital clothingtheir white coats, neckties and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) spoke at some length about nurses' uniforms. Departments are ultimately responsible for health care-acquired infections. The national health service is labour-intensive: it relies on its people. At the end of the day, it is people who are responsible for all the good things that happen in our NHS and, sadly, for those areas in which things are done less well.
	Unless we focus on individuals at a level lower than that envisaged by the code, we may miss a trick in identifying less good practice that potentially causes or contributes to a health care-acquired infection, which is why we have insisted that any data should be collected at the lowest possible level, although having read the revised draft code, it does not seem that that point has been adequately taken on board. When we get data, I hope that the report is conducted at a fine level rather than at a macro level, where I suspect that lessons will be lost. I would be delighted if the Minister were to say how she intends to improve that element of the draft code.
	We will watch the Healthcare Commission closely, because, having read the code, it seems that it must do a great deal of interpretation. It will, of course, be responsible for benchmarking one trust against another and I hope that it will apply consistent standards across the health service. The working of the code will depend on how the Healthcare Commission decides to use it.
	As I have said, some trusts are doing well on health care-acquired infection and some are doing less well. The logical extension of the observation that some trusts are doing well but that others are doing less well is that the Healthcare Commission will act against those that are not doing well. It is reasonable to assume that some trusts are doing less well because they do not comply with good practice, much of which is laid out in the code. The matter is, of course, complicated, and some trusts do less well because of the nature of their work, but it is still reasonable to assume that those trusts that are doing less well are to some extent not applying the best practice laid out in the code. I hope that the Healthcare Commission examines that matter and, where it is necessary to do so, implements the necessary measures to make sure that those institutions improve. We will monitor the situation to make sure that that happens.
	Finally, this area is clearly a matter of great concern for a large number of our constituents. It is a pity that the issue has been an also-ran in comparison with the main business of the day, smoking, but that should not disguise the fact that it is important for a large number of our constituents. The Government have chosen to put their store by the code, and, of course, I wish it well and hope that it works. However, I have set out our serious concerns, which I hope the Minister will bear in mind when she comes to revise the documentas we understand it, the code is a live document that will be revised periodically.

David Kidney: I support the thrust of the amendment, but we have got the law right and are about to get the code right. What is important now is ensuring that the fine words are put into practice in hospital environments up and down the country.
	Before Report, I visited Stafford hospital to talk to hospital staff about protection for patients and visitors to hospitals against health care-associated infections. It was heartening to see that some of the measures that we are debating were already being used in practice. For example, amendment No. 12 suggests that a lead person on the board should take responsibility for that matter, which already happens at Stafford hospital.
	The director of clinical standards at Stafford hospital, Jan Harry, is also the director of infection prevention and control. The modern matron for surgery, Naeema Khan, takes the lead as the internal champion to develop strategies on infection prevention and control, and she has sent me a note reminding me about one or two things that they are up to at the hospital. For example, the national guidance about the Clean your hands campaign has been taken to heart in the hospital, where there is now a network of hand-washing champions, who are role models for staff, visitors and patients.
	To gain community involvementno doubt this is true of many hospitalsthere has been a competition in schools to design posters for the walls of the hospital. That is a sensible way of trying to capture the public's attention, and hopefully people will consider their cleanliness when they are admitted to hospital or visit other patients. Among the many documents reminding hospitals how they should behave, there is now revised guidance on contracting for cleaning. Naeema has informed me that Stafford hospital will be a pilot site for a new ward-cleaning management system and that the relevant preparatory work is under way now.
	In Committee, I discussed capturing information on the level of infection in hospitals, which involves testing and early analysis. Stafford hospital has superb on-site laboratory facilities, so there is the opportunity, with the right guidance, to follow best practice in taking samples, getting assessments, making reports and collecting information. As the hospital has pointed out, however, it could do with some help in its constant fight to keep down health care-associated infections, which requires partnerships that go outside the boundaries of hospitals.
	When I visited the hospital, we discussed care homes for elderly people, which provide many admissions to hospitals these days and which, like hospitals, are an environment where we might anticipate a degree of infection unless care is taken. My hospital and its partners, which include residential care providers, are willing to undergo joint screening and to export good practice from the hospital to those homes. Sadly, the hospital has found that there is a cost, and unless people feel particularly motivated, they will not incur it unless they have to. As politicians, we can take the message to potential partners and hospital trusts that there is something that everyone should do.

Adam Afriyie: In many walks of life, best practice is discovered in the variety of ways in which different organisations operate. If the code is too prescriptive, is there not a danger that innovations in cleaning technology, detection and control will be stifled because such matters are dealt with uniformly?

David Kidney: Given his intervention, the hon. Gentleman will probably like the Minister's response. The Minister will say that we should not tie ourselves down with overly restrictive legislation and that a code that can be changed from time to time to keep up to date with innovations and changes is therefore desirable. By informing partnerships beyond the boundaries of hospitals, we are inviting people to take part in the challenge of eradicating those infections. As the hon. Gentleman said, nobody has exclusive possession of the knowledge that will help us to defeat such infections, and I would welcome help from my constituents who want to contribute to the fight. How we engage people outside the boundaries of hospitals in making sure that the incidence of such infections is driven as low as possible is a challenge for us all.

Nadine Dorries: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 35 and 37.
	MRSA rates have doubled since 1997, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) pointed out. The last time we debated this in the House, the hon. Members for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) spoke at length about the misreporting of figures. Although current figures suggest that we do not have a massive problem, we still do not know the true position.
	However, I am not here to lob grenades across the Table by criticising the Government. I want to look at where we are now and how we can move on to improve the situation. I well remember the NHS in the 1970s under a Labour Government, and in the 1980s under a Conservative Administration. The most fearful bug that we had to deal with in those days was klebsiella, which lived on bars of soap. Things are different now.
	I am not naturally a retrospective person, but in the matter of MRSA one has to be. In the 70s and 80s, hospitals were indisputably much cleaner than they are today. However, it is not just a decline in cleanliness that has brought about MRSA in our hospitals; it is also the result of an over-reliance on antibiotics, increased movement of patients within the hospital estate, centrally imposed targets that pressurise hospital staff and administrators to hot-bed patients by getting a patient into a bed before it has gone cold or has even been cleaned properly, and dirty wards and bathrooms. A combination of those factors causes MRSA in hospitals.
	There is another factor which causes me, as an ex-nurse, some embarrassment. It is easily preventable. I discussed it with the Minister in Committee and was disappointed to note that it was not addressed in more detail in the draft code of practice. It is the fact that nowadays nurses travel to and from home in their uniforms. We all know that that is the case. How often do we see a nurse outside the school gates picking up her children, going into a nursery to pick up her toddler, or leaning over the vegetable section in a supermarket while getting groceries on her way into work? We cannot blame nurses for that because changing facilities are no longer available as they used to be. One has to ask why that is.
	One also has to ask on what this casual behaviour of travelling around in nurses' uniforms is based. Is it based on the premise that nurses believe that the uniform is there to protect them, or doctors, from patients and to keep them clean? If so, that is extremely misguided. The purpose of the uniform is to protect the patient from the nurse or the doctorthe patient who, as a result of being in hospital for procedures or from illness, needs to be protected from anybody who enters their vicinity, including nurses and doctors.
	My amendments relate directly to that situation and are simple and to the point. Hospital staff with direct responsibility for patients should not place them at risk by wearing their uniforms to and from work. That is wrong, and it is undoubtedly a direct contribution to MRSA in hospitals.

Sandra Gidley: I am listening to the hon. Lady with interest. She will surely accept that many staff do not wear uniform, including doctors and, most particularly, consultants. How would she address that situation given that they probably go from one patient to another much more frequently than nurses?

Nadine Dorries: Hospital consultants and doctors wear white coats and tend to put them on when they go into hospital. Having worked as a nurse in the NHS for 10 years, I know that most doctors certainly did so to protect themselves from patientsconsultants perhaps not so much, but they were a law unto themselves at the time. That does not mean that they should be excused from this. The practice of cleanliness in hospitals needs to be upgraded at every level to include nurses, doctors, consultants, hospital staff and everybody who has contact with the patient. Doctors usually wear white coats, and if they do not that is unforgivable.
	The practice of nurses wearing their uniforms to work and back and in the home environment indubitably contributes to MRSA, which costs the NHS about 1 billion a year. I received a copy of the draft code of practice this morning. One 10-word sentence on page 6 relates to staff uniforms. It says that they should be clean and fit for the intended purpose. We know full well that bacteria cannot be seen by the naked eye and that we cannot see a virus. If we could, there would be no MRSA in hospitals. We would not have search and destroy policiesthey would be seek and destroy policies because we would be able to see them. As we cannot, how do we know whether a nurse's uniform is clean? How can a ward manager know whether a uniform is clean? How do we know that the uniform that a doctor or nurse comes into hospital wearing was not the uniform that they wore to collect a child from school? How do we know whether that child has washed their hands all day? How do we know that they have not been sick or in contact with another child who has viruses or bacteria? How do we know that the nurse did not collect the child and get into a car that had been used by the family pets? Did the nurse then walk on to the ward in that uniform after collecting that child from school and driving in that car to a patient who is critically ill and in a vulnerable, immune-suppressed state?
	As we know, 25 per cent. of hospital infections are brought from communities into hospitals, and there is no doubt that a large proportion of that percentage is brought in by staff who use their work uniforms to go home. If there was an overall stipulation that staff who had direct contact with patients did not travel to and from work in their uniforms, I am sure that the figure of 25 per cent. would reduce dramatically. Prohibiting staff from travelling to and from work in uniform would be simple to introduce. It would have no cost implications for the Government and I am sure that it would save lives.
	Amendment No. 37 proposes that washing instructions should be made available to staff with regard to the safe home laundering of uniforms. That is based on my own research. I asked a number of staff who work in hospitals how they launder their uniforms. Replies varied from, I bung it on a wool wash because it's navy and it runs, to, I bung it on a wool wash because it's white and falls to bits on a hot wash, to, I'm a member of the Green party and I do all my washing on a cold wash. According to the guidelines for washing uniforms, none of those is correct. A cold wash is nowhere near sufficient to kill bacteria or viruses on uniforms. Would it not be easy and cost-effective, and would it not save lives, if notices in utility rooms and staff cloakrooms stated the correct washing instructions for nurses' uniforms?
	The draft code of practice for the prevention and control of hospital-acquired infections is 28 pages long, and it is an improvement on the original version. Florence Nightingale had no such document when she went to the Crimea, yet she halved the death rate of soldiers from bacterial infections within weeks by raising standards of cleanliness and sanitation. Some things never change. We are facing exactly the same enemymutating bacteria in hospitals.
	If we had a policy of search and destroy and effective cleaning solutions that worked when they were used on wards, if we brought back state enrolled nurses and allowed no uniforms to be worn on the way to work, and if uniforms were laundered safely at home with proper instructions, I am sure that that would make a huge difference to MRSA rates. However, that is up to the Government and the Minister.
	I end on a note of caution. Yesterday, I met a lady who, unlike everyone else, will not accept the out-of-court settlement that she has been offered for contracting MRSA. She is taking the matter to the High Court. She realises that the cash settlement she gets will be less than that which the hospital trust has offered, but she wants to set a precedent so that others can litigate when they contract MRSA. I hope that the Minister will not let the problem reach the point when people are rushing to the courts.
	We can do better than a 10-word sentence about staff uniforms. From speaking to nurses, those who have contracted MRSA and people in the community, I know that they do not want nurses to go home in their uniforms. Nurses do not want to wear their uniforms to and from work and they readily say, If we were told not to, we wouldn't. They said that changing rooms were not absolutely necessary. One nurse told me, I'd go to the cloakroom where I hang my coat and leave my bag. There is no reason for not imposing such a provision. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the draft code and what happens to nurses, their uniforms and the cleaning of those uniforms at home.

Stephen Williams: I should like to have spoken at greater length in the earlier debate on smoking. None the less, I am delighted with the outcome. Clearly, my wise words were not needed.
	Four or five years ago, we conducted a major survey in my constituency on health care services in Bristol. The most common spontaneous remarks expressed concern about standards of cleanliness in hospitals. In the verbal surveys about health care that we conducted on the doorstep, people often commented on that, and it is therefore right to raise the matter now. We also discussed it at length in Committee.
	Proposed new paragraphs (e) to (j) in amendment No. 12 make sense. Proposed new paragraph (d) is also important because it is obvious that the infection control nurse needs to report directly to somebody, but I wonder whether we need to appoint a separate trust director for that role. As the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) pointed out, the medical or clinical director of most acute trusts is likely to hold such a responsibility alreadyfrom memory, that is the case in Bristolbut there may be some merit in making that publicly known.
	Let me deal with amendments Nos. 35 and 37, which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) tabled. I wonder on what evidence she based her remarks, because much of it appeared anecdotal. Is there such evidence in the public domain? Perhaps the Minister could comment on that. How widespread are the abuses of standards of cleanliness that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire described? Has she spoken to representatives of the Royal College of Nursing, Unison or any other representative bodies in the health service?

Nadine Dorries: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I have not spoken to representatives of the Royal College of Nursing because he asked me yesterday and I told him that I had not. I therefore have no idea why he is asking the question now.

Stephen Williams: I thank the hon. Lady for her answer, which I wanted to appear on the record. That is why I asked the question. I thank her for confirming what she told me last night, but I wondered whether she had spoken to the RCN in the intervening 24 hours. It is a shame that she has not.
	Has the hon. Lady thought through the implications of her proposals? If nurses should take more care about laundering their uniforms, would it be better if that were done in the hospital? As I understand it, theatre staff are likely to have their uniforms laundered on hospital premises. Would that be a practical solution?

Nadine Dorries: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we discussed the matter in Committee and the Minister rightly gave me the reasons why that could not be done. It would take too long and cost too much money among other reasons. Again, the hon. Gentleman knows that full well. I ask simply for guidelines for nursing staff on the safe and recommended method of laundering uniforms. As a former nurse, I probably know far more nurses than the hon. Gentleman and hold far more conversations about the subject.

Stephen Williams: I thank the hon. Lady and am pleased to have helped her to place on the record the reasoning behind the amendments. I do not necessarily disagree with her sentiments, but I wanted to clarify some of the reasoning.

Jane Kennedy: I apologise to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) and others if they feel that the new draft code was placed in the Library unheralded. I cleared it for publication at the weekend and wrote to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and all members of the Committee. However, the letters notifying them that the code was available were posted only yesterday at 4.15 pm. I apologise if they have not arrived and I hope that hon. Members will accept my apologies.
	I ask hon. Members to be clear and careful with the figures that they use for deaths. It is easy for confusion in the mind of the public to lead to greater anxiety than necessary. I do not suggest that MRSA and health care-acquired infections are not a cause for concernthey are. However, I am worried about the figure of 5,000 deaths. The only figures on which we rely are those for 2003, which show that 955 death certificates mentioned MRSA. Of those, 321 identified MRSA as an underlying cause of death.

Andrew Murrison: I agree that the issue causes huge confusion. That is why I was at pains to stress that we need to be clear about what we say and maintain a sense of perspective. However, I fear that the Minister fell into the common trap of confusing health care-acquired infections with MRSA. When I spoke briefly earlier, I saw a look of consternation on the Minister's face and I thought that she might be confusing the two. The figure of 5,000 that I cited related to the former, not the latter.

Jane Kennedy: I accept that. I probably did not hear exactly what the hon. Gentleman said and I thought at first that he had claimed that 5,000 deaths were caused by MRSA. I would be horrified if that were the case. The figure of 5,000 is often cited but it applies to an American study, which is quite old. It is extrapolated from data that are based on the United States. We are working hard to get the best information possible into the public domain.
	I stress to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) that we should not make such claims as deaths have doubled since 1997. I am resisting my natural inclination, which is to dive in with both feet and say, Hang on a minute, let's go further back. However, I hope that she accepts that we began the collection of the data and the surveillance of MRSA and other infections.

Andrew Lansley: One moment the Minister enjoins us to be very precise, yet the next moment she blandly says, We began the collecting of the data. That is not true. Nosocomial surveillance began under the previous Conservative Government. It was not carried out on a mandatory basis, but in a number of respects it was commenced under that Government.

Jane Kennedy: I accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it was making the surveillance mandatory that led to increased reporting, because the information was required to be reported. That raised the reporting of the infection to a different level.
	We need to remember that people who die with MRSA are often already seriously ill with another condition. It is therefore difficult to say with any certainty whether they would have recovered from their underlying condition if they had not acquired the infection. However, none of the brief discussion that we have just had should distract us from the seriousness of the issue.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) for taking the time to visit his local hospital. I am pleased to say that the Clean your hands campaign to which he referred has had a 100 per cent. sign-up in the NHS. It has been taken up very rapidly. My hon. Friend also described the board level buy-in at Stafford, which is essential if the whole organisation is to take on the change of culture necessary to reduce bacteraemia levels.
	My hon. Friend also asked us to consider the relationship between hospitals and care homes, where more screening could perhaps usefully be developed. We accept that screening works, and we are trialling ways of determining how a patient should be managed, having used the screening to identify whether they have a health care-acquired infection. Those trials are taking place in three different trusts, one of which is being sponsored by the Department of Health. We shall get the results in September 2006, and they will enable us to learn a lot about how trusts should respond to screening, having applied it. A study carried out in Oxford showed that more than 90 per cent. of those diagnosed with an MRSA infection had had previous contact with the health care system and might have contracted the infection during their earlier treatment. All of this highlights the complex nature of the problem that we are grappling with.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Westbury for his acknowledgement of the improvements in the code, and I accept that further improvements could probably be made. However, I want him and his hon. Friends to think carefully before pressing the amendments to a vote if they feel tempted to do so. As we discussed in Committee, amendments such as these would introduce inappropriate detail into the Bill, raising expectations and giving the impression that certain measures were more important than others. For example, hand hygiene and the decontamination of instruments are not mentioned in the amendments, but they are of equal importance. All aspects of infection control must be taken seriously and implemented if the fight against health care-associated infection is to be successful. However, I recognise that the amendments are the result of real concerns and I will try to allay those worries in the course of my speech.
	Clause 13 inserts three new sections into the Health and Social Care Act 2003. Amendment No. 12 would add eight new paragraphs to section 47A. The first of these, proposed new paragraph (c), is aimed at ensuring that each trust has a director responsible for
	cleanliness and health care associated infection control.
	While I understand the aim of trying to clarify lines of responsibility, this proposal could compromise the role of the director of infection prevention and control. The code of practicehon. Members might like to refer to pages 5 to 7 of the draftwill require an NHS body to establish appropriate management systems and the appointment of a director of infection prevention and control. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford pointed out, most hospitals now do that, and all health care providers will do so as a result of this code and the one that will follow it, which will allow regulation to the same standard that applies in the independent and voluntary sector.
	In response to proposed new paragraph (d), which aims to ensure that the senior infection control nurse reports directly to the
	Director responsible for cleanliness and health care associated infection control,
	I would like to point out that the draft code already gives the director of infection prevention and controlthat is a long title, but I cannot think of any way of shortening itresponsibility for the infection control team.
	Proposed new paragraph (e) suggests that the code should specify the action that the trust director and board must take concerning ward closures when they receive an adverse report. I genuinely believe that that is too prescriptive. The code, as it is written, will require an NHS body to have criteria for advising closure and have arrangements in place for redirecting admissions. It is not that we think it unnecessary to bear these things in mind, but the amendment is too prescriptive in that sense.
	The policy will be developed with input from the infection control team locally, so local policy will reflect local circumstance but while it is important for us to have a policy, we do not want to prescribe the content from the centre. I think it was the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) who said that we should resist the urge to be too prescriptive, and I commend his comments to his colleague. People on the ground should be allowed to make such decisions with the benefit of their local knowledge.
	Paragraph (f) is intended to ensure that there is pre and post-discharge surveillance for patients undergoing surgical procedures. We agree that both kinds of surveillance are beneficial, and the code of practice will encourage NHS bodies to introduce them. However, we will not make them mandatory at this stage as there are significant technical barriers, with which I shall deal shortly. I direct Members to page 17 of the draft code on surveillance.
	Paragraph (g) is linked to amendments that were tabled and discussed in Committee, and I have had a conversation with the hon. Members for Westbury and for South Cambridgeshire about the code. The paragraph implies that it should contain requirements relating to the number of infection control nurses. I do not want to include such requirements in a code dealing with infection prevention and control. I think that infection prevention and control should be everyone's business; it should not be left to a cohort of infection control nurses. Setting a ratio of specialist infection control staff to beds, rather than challenging the culture in the organisation, will encourage people to see the job as one to be performed by those people alone. Appropriate management and clinical governance systems are required, and that will be dealt with by the code of practice.
	Paragraphs (h) and (i) suggest that there should be requirements relating to isolation facilities, and that standards relating to cleaning services should be defined. Pages 6 and 7 of the code deal with those suggestions. I can, I hope, reassure the House that the code will cover important matters of that kind. The draft code already requires NHS bodies to ensure that they have adequate isolation facilities to prevent the spread of infection. Adequate should not be interpreted as a dismissive term. It means what it says: it means enough to deal with the circumstances that might arise. The draft code also requires NHS bodies to have a cleaning plan giving details of the standards of cleanliness needed in each part of their premises. While I accept the strength of the arguments advanced in Committee and today, I feel that the code strikes the right balance, although we will keep it under constant review.
	Paragraph (j) suggests that the code should require hospitals to record infection data by clinical department. We agree that analysis of surveillance by clinical department brings considerable benefit, and we now collect information on MRSA bloodstream infections by specialty in trusts. Enhanced surveillance allows us to do that. The code will encourage the NHS to undertake such analyses in the context of a range of organisms.
	We have been criticised for not proceeding with work on post-discharge surveillance. Let me explain the practical problems. Believe it or not, there is currently no agreed definition of wounds. There is a lack of computer access when it comes to visiting patients outside health care institutions, and not all health care providers have full access to patient records. That applies to, for instance, midwives visiting women who have had caesarean sections. Notwithstanding those problems, we are working with experts on plans to improve the position.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we take the points that he and his hon. Friends have made seriously. We are working to make the code flexible and proportionate, and also to make it reflect the concerns that have been expressed. Although the amendment expresses reasonable anxieties, I consider it unnecessary and hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my reassurances.
	Amendments Nos. 35 and 37 would also include inappropriate detail about the code of practice in the Bill. Including their requirements in the code would present practical difficulties in relation to enforcement. We have been working hard with the Healthcare Commission to ensure that the code is enforceablean issue raised by the hon. Member for Westburyand we are concentrating on the outcomes that really matter.
	On clothing, the bottom line is that NHS staff have clean, hygienic uniforms. Clause 4(g) of the code as drafted includes the following requirement:
	Every NHS Body must ensure that Staff uniforms are clean and fit for the intended purpose.

Nadine Dorries: rose

Jane Kennedy: I know that the hon. Lady is going to say that they are only words, but in fact they are pretty strong words and I hope that she will accept the intent behind them. However, I shall give way to hear what she has to say.

Nadine Dorries: Clean is a matter of perception. We can say, You look clean, but we cannot see viruses and bacteria, as I said earlier. How can a ward manager know whether a uniform is clean and fit for purpose if they do not know what bacteria or viruses are living on it? If it has been worn at home, it could have been worn while the member of staff picked up their child from school or went shopping in the supermarket. How could a ward manager be expected to know that?

Jane Kennedy: The areas of greatest risk are patients who are very poorly and have woundspeople who are going into hospital for invasive procedures, including something as simple as the insertion of a drip, or for some form of operation. It is appropriate that, in those cases, suitable additional protective clothing be worn. Indeed, such practice is widespread. Plastic aprons and gloves are worn by those who are going to spend some time with such patients, even visitors. The point that the hon. Lady makes about how clean a uniform looks is unarguable and patently true, but including in the code a requirement on the NHS to ensure that uniforms are of a required standard of cleanliness is a very forceful step to take. I hope that she is to some extent reassured

Nadine Dorries: rose

Jane Kennedy: I shall give way one last time.

Nadine Dorries: Many years agoI do not want to say how manyplastic aprons and gloves were commonplace throughout wards. Before a nurse went to any patient, she would take off her existing apron and put on a new one; indeed, that is what I did. Aseptic technique was drilled into us as nurses. Everything that we did involved aseptic technique, particularly when dealing with patients who were vulnerable and at risk. That same mental attitude toward asepsis and changing gowns and gloves is no longer present in wards; it simply does not happen any more. In the past, the provision of such gowns was prescribed. Would it not be appropriate, therefore, for the code to make reference to the provision of freely available gowns, so that what happened in the 1970s and 1980sthe constant changing of gowns and gloveshappens again?

Jane Kennedy: I do not accept the hon. Lady's description of what happens now: I have indeed seen that level of concentration on aseptic techniques, but I hear what she is saying. In my view, we should not strengthen the code in the way that she describes at this point, but I will reflect on this issue. We will have time to take such concerns on board as the Bill progressesI hopethrough the other place. I have sought to provide some reassurance on how seriously we are taking these issues, and the requirement that we have included in the code, measured as it will be by the Healthcare Commission, will be sufficient. However, we continue to listen on these issues.
	In Committee, the hon. Lady gave a graphic description of a visit to a hospital in which she met a nurse with what she assumed was spaghetti Bolognese over the front of her uniform. As I said in Committee, had I been that nurse's manager, I would have expected her to have washed her uniform, or at least to have worn another one. However, as the hon. Lady says, one cannot always tell whether a uniform is free of germs, even if it has been washed, just as one cannot always guarantee that one's hands are totally free of germs.
	I believe that the code as drafted would give NHS trusts a legal duty to ensure that such things do not happen. It would give relevant NHS bodies a legal duty to ensure that their staff had clean uniforms. How they achieve that would be up to them, which is what I meant when I said that the code is outcome-based. I realised that the hon. Lady did not have the benefit of the latest draft of the code, and she is obviously still disappointed with the current version. I hope that the redrafted code addresses some of the concerns and reassures hon. Members. While I approve of the amendment's overall aim of ensuring that staff have clean uniforms, I am afraid that we disagree with the methods proposed to achieve that aim.
	Finally, for the sake of clarity, I should make it clear that in the Oxford study that I mentioned earlier, I meant 90 per cent. of the 25 per cent. of patients with MRSA who had been in contact with a hospital. I hope that that is clearer.
	For the reasons that I have given, I hope that the amendments will have served the purpose of probing the Government's intentions in bringing forward the code and amending it as we have. I hope that the hon. Member for Westbury will withdraw his amendment, but if he does not I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to resist it.

Andrew Murrison: Given that the code is an evolving document, we may hope for future amendments to it along the lines that we have proposed tonight. We look to the Healthcare Commission to advise on and supervise the code. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16
	  
	Accountable officers and their responsibilitiesas to controlled drugs

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 14, line 41, leave out 'responsible' and insert 'designated'.[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 28
	  
	The responsible pharmacist

Amendments made: No. 30, in page 25, leave out lines 34 to 47.
	No. 31, in page 26, line 3, at end insert
	'72B   Section 72A: supplementary
	(1)   The failure by a person to comply with any requirements of section 72A of this Act, or of regulations made under that section, may constitute misconduct for the purposes of section 80 of this Act, section 8 of the Pharmacy Act 1954 and Article 20 of the Pharmacy (Northern Ireland) Order 1976; and the Statutory Committee may deal with such a failure accordingly.
	(2)   A person who does not have the qualifications and experience required by regulations made by virtue of section 72A(7)(a) of this Act is not to be considered as a responsible pharmacist for the purposes of sections 70 to 72 of this Act.
	(3)   Subsection (4) of this section applies if a person
	(a)   fails to comply with the requirements of subsection (2) of section 72A of this Act, or of regulations made under that subsection,
	(b)   fails to comply with any requirements as to absence from the premises contained in regulations made by virtue of subsection (7)(b) of that section.
	(4)   If this subsection applies, the person in question is not to be considered while the failure continues as being in charge of the business at the premises in question (or in a subsection (3)(a) case at any of them) for the purposes of sections 70 to 72 of this Act.'.
	No. 32, in page 26, leave out lines 15 to 22.[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 32
	  
	Applications for provision of pharmaceutical services

Sandra Gidley: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 28, line 42, leave out from beginning to 'products' in line 43.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 29, in page 28, line 45, at end add
	'that are not drugs or medicines.'.

Sandra Gidley: These amendments seek to amend clause 32, which deals with applications for provision of pharmaceutical services. It may be worth spending a little time on the context of these amendments. As the House knows, following the Office of Fair Trading consultation a couple of years ago, new pharmacies are controlled by something called the control of entry regulations. Any application to open a new pharmacy has to go before the primary care trust or the Assembly in Wales and has to pass certain tests.
	It is also worth remembering that pharmacies are private contractors that have a contract with the national health service. Historically, that has been to deliver dispensing services, but that has recently changed with the introduction of the new pharmacy contract. That seeks to extend the role of pharmacists, which is widely regarded as a good thing.
	Instead of just relying on dispensing, the contract is divided into levels of service. The standard services are those that all pharmacies should supply, and include services such as dispensing and health promotion. Advanced services are developing gradually and the first, which has been successful so far, is the medicines use reviewor MURwhich has benefited many patients. So far, so good. The potential exists for enhanced services, such as smoking cessationI had to mention that tonightand monitoring the progress of disease or providing services to care homes. Commissioning of such enhanced services has been very patchy. Some primary care trusts have been very good and tried to embrace new services, but others have ignored the opportunity completely. Some of the evidence shows that the future of the enhanced services next year looks shaky, to say the least. However, that is probably a debate for another day.
	Clause 32 applies only when a primary care trust has two applications before it to provide pharmaceutical services in a similar locality. Each pharmacy must pass the existing test as to whether it is necessary or desirable.
	As drafted, clause 32 would mean that an NHS contract could be awarded according to promises made in relation to the commercial part of the business. That is wrong and unenforceable, and various problems arise. I admit that the Government have consulted on the proposal, but most respondents rejected it. All the contractors who were consulted did so, regardless of whether they represented single, independent contractors or large multiples.
	The contractors' objections revolved around a few simple propositions. They said that no request for a certain level of medicine pricing could be enforced, as no price could be guaranteed in the long term. Contractors could promise the earth, but how could that be monitored by the PCT on a regular basis? What would happen if circumstances changed? For example, a certain price for over-the-counter medicines might be allowed, but the company or pharmacist involved could renege on the deal.
	The best analogy that I can come up with is with the contracts awarded to NHS dentists. Such dentists spend two or three years building up their patient lists, but then decide that they do not want to provide dentistry on the NHS. In those circumstances, the PCT has no control over what happens, and it is the question of control that is important here.
	It is difficult to see how a PCT can balance different offers in different applications. For example, one pharmacy might offer a certain price for over-the-counter medicines, while another offers an enhanced delivery service. How can the first offer be compared with the second? Who decides what is best for patients? During the consultation, the concern was raised that the proposal could lead to more application refusals being contested, and therefore to a possible increase in the number of judicial reviews.
	What happens if a pharmacy is sold, quite legitimately, to an independent contractor or a different group? The buyer might have different marketing or pricing policies, or want to offer a different range of services. How will that be dealt with?
	It has been argued that the proposal will help disadvantaged communities, as they would have access to cut-price medicines. I have worked in such communities, and my experience is that that is not really a consideration. People who live in such areas know that they can get free prescriptions from their GPs, and are happy to do so. As a result, that argument is something of a red herring.
	Very often, businesses in disadvantaged communities are run by independent contractors. At first, they might not be able to offer big attractions in respect of cut-price medicines, but their commitment to the community can mean that they choose to plough some of the profits back into developing future services. Traditionally, that is what has happened in pharmacy, but the clause could put a stop to pharmacists' very realistic desire to do the best that they can within the constraints of their budgets.
	In short, the clause is unworkable as it stands, being difficult both to monitor and sustain. If the Minister is committed to proceeding with it, I hope that she will at least review the new system after it has been in place for a year or 18 months. In that way, she will be able to see whether any of the problems that I have highlighted are based in reality rather than in fear.

Jane Kennedy: We are discussing the narrow focus of clause 32. When determining chemist applications to provide pharmaceutical services, current legislation means that PCTs cannot take into account additional services that the chemist might offer.
	When PCTs are looking at competing applications that relate to the same neighbourhood and which individually pass the necessary or desirable tests, clause 32 will allow them to consider the improvements that each chemist would bring to the provision of over-the-counter medicines and other health care products, as well as associated advice.
	Our proposal aims to encourage applicants to offer improvements generally to the range and availability of medicines and services to support self-care; for example, through helping people to manage minor ailments and promoting healthier living through better advice and information about such products. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) expressed concern that smaller businesses might not be able to fend off bigger competitors. She also argued that the clause was not sustainable or workable.
	I do not share the hon. Lady's pessimismor if I did, I would not be proposing the measure. The important point is that although the price of over-the-counter medicines must obviously be a factor, the clause is not simply about price; to a large degree, it is about support and advice to the patient in the management of such medicines.

Sandra Gidley: I understand the possible drivers for persuading applicants to offer extra services, which must be a good thing for patients. However, it is difficult to balance the offer of a low price on medicines against those other services. The consideration should not be purely financial. Although the provision of other services is worthy and could benefit the local health economy, merely to consider the price of medicines seems a step too far.

Jane Kennedy: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but her amendment would prevent PCTs from considering what improvements applicants would bring to the provision of over-the-counter medicines in certain cases, which is specific and narrow. Instead, PCTs would be limited to considering only the provision of advice and a range of other health care products, such as dressings, incontinence appliances or sunscreens. That is important and would be welcomed by everybody, but I do not accept the concerns expressed by the hon. Lady, so I hope that the amendment is a probing one. I appreciate that we are on Report, but there may be further opportunity to consider the matter in another place.
	The clause is in line with our policy of opening up and developing community pharmacy services. It will improve the availability of over-the-counter medicines in deprived communities. I hope that the amendment was a probing one and I ask the hon. Lady not to press it to a vote. I will consider her comments and perhaps I can respond at a later date.

Sandra Gidley: I am disappointed that the Minister did not even give us a hint about how the clause will be enforced. As I pointed out, it is unenforceable. If pharmacies decide to change the services that they offer, which may be down to financial constraints, it is difficult to see what teeth the PCT will have. Somebody could promise the earth to secure a contract, but not deliver, and the patient would be the poorer.
	It is disappointing that the Minister has not given us any commitments and that she has not said that she will review how the measure works in practice, given the concerns that have been expressed. I shall not divide the House on a technical matter, but I hope that it will be revisited in another place and that the Minister will write to me with reassurances about the points that I have raised.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 76
	  
	Orders and regulations

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 58, line 41, leave out '3' and insert '(Smoke-free premises: exemptions)'.[Caroline Flint.]

Andrew Murrison: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 58, line 41, after 'section', insert '2'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 34, in page 58, line 41, after '4', insert '5'.

Andrew Murrison: I will not press the amendment to a vote but very much hope that we will find ourselves in violent agreement with the Government, who have consistently made it clear in Committee and during today's proceedings that they favour the affirmative procedure in respect of regulations, which flow like the Tiber through the Bill. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 would simply ensure that the affirmative procedure would be applied to clause 5, which clearly deals with vehicles, and clause 2, in respect of which we are particularly concerned about the definitions of what is enclosed, substantially enclosed, not enclosed and so on. The Minister must agree that it is important, given the uncertainly that surrounds such things, that the regulations that the Secretary of State may wish to enforce are subject to the affirmative procedure.

Caroline Flint: As the hon. Gentleman suggests, under amendments Nos. 33 and 34, regulations made under clauses 2 and 5 would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Clause 2 makes provision for premises open to the public and those used for work to be smoke-free. It applies only to premises that are enclosed or substantially enclosed and enables regulations to be made to define the meaning of the words enclosed and substantially enclosed. Meanwhile, clause 5 enables regulations to be made to provide for vehicles to be smoke-free.
	Those matters have been left to regulations to enable consultation with stakeholders and to allow flexibility to amend requirements if need be, based on practical post-implementation experience without the need to amend primary legislation. Given the possibly technical nature of the regulations that would be made under clauses 2 and 5, we have undertaken to conduct a public consultation exercise with respect to any draft regulation prepared.
	The negative procedure was selected for the exercise of those powers, as we felt that Parliament would have no good reason in particular to consider such highly technical matters in such detail that it would warrant taking the affirmative route. However, we discussed such issues in Committee, and I said that I would consider them. The hon. Gentleman has again expressed his wish for the affirmative procedure to be used, and I will listen to the views of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of the other place when it comes to scrutinise the Bill. On that basis, I cannot support the amendment but remain of an open mind and open to persuasion.

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to the Minister for clearly pointing out that these matters will be considered in another place. I hope very much that their lordships will listen to what has been said in Committee and today and will propose amendments that would have the effect that I desire, but given the Minister's assurances that she is still thinking about the issue, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
	Amendment made: No. 22, in page 58, line 41, at end insert
	'(   )   an order under section (Power to amend age for sale of tobacco etc),'.[Jane Kennedy.]

Schedule 8
	  
	Minor and consequential amendments

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 84, at end insert
	'Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15)
	In Schedule 1 to the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (exempt information relating to health services), for paragraph 11(a) (as substituted by paragraph 72(2) of Schedule 11 to the 2003 Act) substitute
	(a)   is or was formerly providing primary medical services, primary dental services or primary ophthalmic services under a contract under section 28K, 28Q or 28WA of the 1977 Act;.'.[Jane Kennedy.]
	Title
	Amendment made: No. 23, in title, line 2, after 'vehicles' insert
	'and for amending the minimum age of persons to whom tobacco may be sold'.[Jane Kennedy.]
	Order for Third Reading read.

Patricia Hewitt: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am proud to move the Bill's Third Reading. I particularly want to thank the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) who have done a superb job in piloting the Bill through Committee and much of the Report stage that we have just had. [Interruption.] Despite some of the sedentary comments by Opposition Members, I also pay tribute to Members on both sides who have adopted a positive and constructive attitude to the elements of a Bill that not only protects public health inside and outside hospital but will further improve the performance and efficiency of the national health service.
	Of course, the main focus of our debate and of public attention has been on the Bill's smoking provisions. This evening, the House voted absolutely decisively to introduce a complete ban on smoking in all enclosed public places and workplaces, including all licensed premises and private members' clubs. We have therefore not only delivered on the manifesto promise to ban smoking in virtually all public places and workplaces on which we were elected 10 months ago but have gone additional steps further. That reflects the excellent debate that took place on the smoking provisions in which I and my hon. Friends, who genuinely believed, and always have, that the arguments about private members' clubs were finely balanced, have none the less voted for a complete ban, particularly in the interests of ensuring a level playing field between different businesses such as small pubs and members' clubs. I recognise that there will be some disappointment among at least some members of private clubs at the outcome of the vote, but I nevertheless believe that it was the right one.
	The comprehensive ban for which the House has decisively voted will mean, over time, that some 600,000 people, beyond those who would have otherwise given up smoking, will be led to abandon it. The result of that and the protection that we are giving to people from second-hand smoking will be thousands of people's lives being saved and thousands of families being spared the grief of losing a loved one prematurely. That is why I think today's vote and the Bill will be seen as historic legislation on public health equivalent to, for instance, the legislation on seat belts of some decades ago.
	I am also delighted that, although it was not debated this afternoon, we have taken power to raise the age for the purchase of tobacco from 16 to 18 following the consultation in which we engaged. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), who has campaigned vigorously and effectively on that issue.
	Other vital provisions include the statutory code of practice on MRSA and associated health care infections. It will be very widely welcomed not only by the public, who quite rightly expect every hospital to get down their MRSA and other infection rates, but by staff in both the NHS and the independent sector.
	The Bill will also provide for much stronger management of controlled drugs in response to some of the shortcomings identified in the Shipman inquiry and will improve safeguards against the very small minority of people who would divert those drugs for personal abuse, financial gain or even, regrettably, for criminal purposes. It will also help us to continue improving and modernising NHS pharmacy services, ensuring, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, that we can continue expanding the services offered by our pharmacists and make them much more convenient to patients.
	I was pleased to read the discussion in Committee during which the provision of ophthalmic services in England was praised. Although there was concern that the Bill would tamper with a service that is already excellent, I hope that hon. Members on both sides are reassured that by removing the restrictions on with whom a primary trust may contract to provide ophthalmic services the Bill will help to increase patient choice and thus continue to improve services. The new framework for ophthalmic services will ensure that we will be able to provide enhanced services in the community of the kind that are often available at present only in hospitals. That will be in line with the direction that we have just spelled out in the White Paper.

Andrew Lansley: We did not have the opportunity to discuss general ophthalmic services on Report. Does the Secretary of State agree with the sentiments of amendment No. 17 that when primary care trusts use their powers to contract general ophthalmic services, they should maximise the choice available to patients? We want to ensure that PCTs will be able to continue to exercise choice on accessing services, so it would helpful if the Secretary of State said whether that is firmly her intention.

Patricia Hewitt: I am happy to reassure the House that we want more choice for patients in ophthalmic and other medical services. We want the best possible services to be available in every community, with, of course, the best value for money.
	The Bill has important provisions that give new powers to the counter-fraud service, which already does excellent work to ensure that taxpayers' money is used for the purpose for which hon. Members votebetter patient care. The Bill also responds to the Public Administration Committee's report on government by appointment and reconfirms our commitment to an independent appointments process.
	The Bill is a major and historic step forward for public health. It will help us to continue to improve the national health service and will give patients and the public better, faster, more convenient and safer health care. The Bill was good, but it has been made even better by today's votes. I commend it to the House.

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is not in the Chamber. If congratulations are being offered on the outcome of the Bill's principal measures on smoking, we must accept that they probably owe much to his work and leadership of the Health Committee. Whatever one's view of the precise details of the final outcome, his approach was clearer and more decisive than any ever taken by the Government.
	I am surprised that the Secretary of State has claimed on Third Reading that she has implemented the Government's manifesto because that is the one thing she has not done. On Second Reading, she quoted the part of the manifesto that said that the Government would legislate to ensure that
	all enclosed public places and work places other than licensed premises will be smoke-free . . . all restaurants will be smoke-free, all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be smoke-free.
	She also expressly told us on Second Reading that the Government would consult on whether there should be smoking rooms in pubsthat has gone. She asserted that it was right to strike a balance and said:
	we have made the judgment that the right balance to strike is between banning smoking in virtually every enclosed public space and work space, and exempting the membership clubs and the licensed premises that do not serve food, in order to protect freedom of choice for that minority of people whom nobody is forcing to go into a pub that allows smoking.[Official Report, 29 November 2005; Vol. 440, c. 156.]
	Although we knew what was going to happen, the Secretary of State did not have the courtesy to tell the House how she was going to voteif she knew at that stageat the start of the debate on new clause 5. However, she and the Prime Minister have voted completely contrary to the exemptions that Ministers presented to the House three months ago. She may congratulate herself and her colleagues on their stewardship of the Bill, but the truth of the matter is that the House was taken in precisely the wrong direction on Second Reading. Additionally, a substantial amount of time was expended on the matter in Committee, although we all knew at that point that Ministers were on an impossible wicket.
	On Second Reading, the Conservatives pressed for a free vote, and it was quite obvious that it would have been better for the Government to abandon the distinction between pubs that serve food and those that do not. There are often mutual congratulations on Third Reading, and I shall offer mine in a minute, but I must tell the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Healththe so-called public health Ministerthat the Bill was not well handled. It was one of the most astonishingly badly handled Bills in recent years. It should not have been introduced in the form in which it was introduced, it should not have been pursued in that way, and even if it has produced a solution with which Parliament is happy, that was not by virtue of ministerial design. Ministers should therefore not accept congratulations. [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State is saying that my colleagues voted for a more comprehensive ban, I do not have a difficulty with that. She should perhaps remember that we made it clear on Second Reading that there would be a free vote on the express basis that Opposition Members had distinct views on the judgment that should be made. A free vote was not offered to Government Members. The Government should accept that there was a crass error on their part, for which they should apologise.

Philip Hollobone: As a Conservative candidate, I stood on a manifesto commitment that we would not introduce legislation on this issue. Labour Members, however, stood on a commitment to introduce such legislation. They have broken their word, because they have extended the legislative effect of their proposals. I am proud to have stood by my manifesto to defend individual liberty in this country.

Andrew Lansley: Our manifesto made it perfectly clear that people must take responsibility for their own health. We made it clear before the election that we would pursue a more vigorous self-regulatory solution. However, if that did not deliver the substantial protection that we sought within three years, so that non-smokers were not exposed to smoke, children not exposed to second-hand smoke and staff protected, we would take legislative powers. I do not wish to disagree with my hon. Friend, as we have discussed the matter and participated in free votes. He should accept, however, that we were committed at the election to public health legislation, which would have included powers on smoking.

Roger Gale: I have been away and done a little digging, and would be grateful if my hon. Friend shed light on something. It appears from my reading of the Bill that royal palaces will be exempt. If so, will that exemption include the Palace of Westminster?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is rightroyal palaces are not covered. We discussed that in Committee, and the ban will not apply in the House.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is giving holy grail status to manifestos. As the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone), the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and others will find out, the Conservative party has entered the big tent of new politics, in which manifesto commitments are foundations on which it is hoped

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Instead of discussing party manifestos, perhaps we can return to Third Reading.

Andrew Lansley: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to move on from my more acid remarks to constructive ones.

Gillian Merron: Churlish.

Andrew Lansley: I am never churlishcross, perhaps, but never churlish.
	I agree with the Secretary of State that we have engaged in constructive discussion at every stage in the Bill's progress. That was very true in Committee, where the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) rightly pressed for an increase in the age at which tobacco can be purchased. I am delighted that we have moved in that direction. However, even though I have no doubt that another place will respect the decision of the House on a free vote, and with a significant majority at that, it should consider issues relating to smoking including definitions, what additional places will be specified under the legislation, under what circumstances private vehicles might be specified, and whether vehicles used for work are to be included in the smoke-free provisions. Those are important matters, and some valuable work will no doubt be done in another place.
	We have not discussed specialist tobacconists, but I hope Ministers will understand the desire for them not to be put out of business. I should also mention penalties, which we discussed in Committee. I was not entirely happy with the scale of penalties that the Government proposed. In some respects they have been increased, which the Minister thinks appropriate, but I hope that that will be reconsidered in another place and weighed up relative to other legislative penalties.
	As our last group of amendments made clear, the nature of the regulatory provisions and how they are to be made is important. In addition to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), we suggested in Committee that it might be better for the regulations to be made by affirmative procedure in the first instance, rather than by affirmative procedure in every case. Subsequent technical amendments to the regulations could be made by negative procedure, but the initial regulations, which will contain substance as well as technicalities, might well be made on an affirmative basis.
	We discussed infection control previously and had the opportunity to raise some of the issues on Report and in discussions with the Minister in Committee and elsewhere. The issues are important and intractable. As the Minister will acknowledge, the latest six-monthly MRSA statistics do not show the progress that she and we might have wished. That demonstrates the difficulty of making progress and the necessity for the measures described in the code to be implemented effectively. Isolation facilities must not only be appropriate but must follow a risk assessment. We need to work on the design of hospitals and ensure that the necessary facilities are built in from the outset.
	Clinical data, which the Minister agreed should be collected by a clinical department, should be used as a performance management tool in hospitals to deliver improved infection control, should be a basis on which health care providers are held to account, and should be used by them better to inform public debate about infection control. One of the central issues that we constantly try to highlight is the distinction between prevalence and incidence. Not all incidents of infection in hospitals are by any means the consequence of infection being contracted in hospital. Distinguishing between the two can make an enormous difference to public understanding. I hope that another place will take a substantial interest in those matters and in model cleaning contracts, nursing uniforms and standards. Committees in another place have done significant work on those aspects in the past, and I hope they will follow it up.
	We hope that the pharmacy contract will increasingly be implemented innovatively. Only a few weeks ago, we discussed the White Paper and the desire for greater opportunities for people to be screened for disease and to initiate for themselves more checks on their health status. It is perfectly clear that pharmacies can do a great deal in that direction, and the pharmacy contract always allows that. The issue is whether primary care trusts are contracting for such an approach. One aspect that needs to be followed up is not merely legislating or contracting for such possibilities, but ensuring that the structure of commissioning inside primary care trusts with regard to pharmacies allows for them.
	One issue that we have not had a further opportunity to discuss is the span of control of a pharmacist, and I hope that those in another place will pursue it. The professional confidence that we place in pharmacists is important, and the profession itself attaches considerable importance to that. Many pharmacists do not want to move beyond the rule of one pharmacy, one pharmacist, or if they do, it is only in very exceptional circumstances and it must be delineated. I do not think that we have yet arrived at a point at which it is delineated in the Bill, and I hope that that will be pursued further.
	On general ophthalmic services, the Secretary of State made it clear that PCTs should pursue the maximum choice consistent with value for money for the Exchequer. That must be true. Many people are wondering precisely what the motivation is for the legislation and what is going wrong in general ophthalmic services that demands such a change. Currently, optometrists and registered opticians can offer services, and patients can use them; they have maximum choice, and there does not seem to be a difficulty with that. If we are to move to a new design, let us ensure that those things continue. Let us ensure that the central funding is clearly set out, either in the legislation or in ministerial commitments for the future, so that the free sight test is available and cannot be compromised by budgetary pressures on individual primary care trusts; that the scope of the sight test can be adapted in line with best clinical practice as we move forward; that optometrists and opticians are able and encouraged to provide sight tests and related tests that not only focus on the basic question of visual field, but go beyond that to try to detect disease to the maximum extent; and that the free sight test itself is not infringed in years to come.
	We have spent almost three months on the Bill. In many ways, it has ended up where I suspect many of us thought and said it would, although not necessarily as easily as it should have done. Many parts of the Bill are of a nature that commands consensus across the House. On smoking, many of my colleagues object[Hon. Members: Yes.] I know that they object to what the House has decided, but frankly, it was always our view that the matter was best dealt with on a free vote. Since we have at last come to that and the House has taken a decision on a free vote, for my part, whether or not I agree precisely with the outcome, I think that that is a fair basis for the House to reach its conclusion. I am content for the Bill as a whole to go to another place in its current form, and I hope that it will be further improved there.

Jeff Ennis: I thank the Secretary of State for her generous comments about my campaigning activities with regard to Government new clause 6. As she knows, I have been pushing the issue ever since the Government launched their White Paper Choosing Health. In fact, I have tabled two early-day motions in the past two parliamentary Sessions, as well as presenting my ten-minute Bill, the Age of Sale of Tobacco Bill, on 18 October last year.
	I do not want to repeat in detail what I said in Committee, but I am grateful to Ministers for going out to public consultation on the matter over the next few months. I am sure that the public consultation will be very positive. Indeed, the BBC and Sky conducted two polls immediately before Christmas showing support of about 85 or 90 per cent. for raising the age of sale. I have always regarded the measure as common sense. Before 1997, exactly the same proportion of young people smoked in Guernsey as in the UK, but following the implementation of the measure, the rate in Guernsey fell to 50 per cent. of that in the UK. The measure has been adopted in many European countries as well as in Scotland and Ireland. It has the support of the Trading Standards Institute, which is the enforcement agency that carries out age-of-sale test purchases. A resolution on the issue has been passed at the past two Trading Standards Institute annual conferences.
	The measure will bring the age of sale of tobacco in line with that of alcohol and of dangerous knives and airguns, the age limit for which will be increased to 18 by the Violent Crime Reduction Bill.
	Most smokers start smoking in their early teenage yearsindeed, most of them start before the age of 16. I am sure that raising the age will not stop teenagers, and young teenagers in particular, from trying smoking. We need to think about introducing a more effective education programme in schools, youth clubs and other settings in which young people congregate. As has happened in Guernsey, I am sure that the measure will impact on the number of young people who smoke with the passage of time.
	I pay tribute to my local newspaper, the South Yorkshire Times, which has produced a petition entitled, Petition to raise the minimum age of smoking to 18. It states:
	The South Yorkshire Times is supporting Mexborough and Barnsley East MP Jeff Ennis in his bid to raise the minimum age of smoking from 16 to 18 with his Age of Sale of Tobacco Bill. Sign below to show your support for this measure to improve the health of our young people.
	As I said in Committee, I want to single out a campaigning journalist with the South Yorkshire Times, Lee Siggs, for his help. The South Yorkshire Times placed the petition in not only all the local newsagents, but the local further education college, Dearne Valley college. The vast majority of signatories to the petition are young people aged 16 to 25 from not only my constituency and places such as Greaseborough and Swinton, which are in the constituency of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), but Denaby and Conisbrough, which are in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint).
	I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley for the way in which they took the Bill through Committee and improved it.
	Since I discussed the issue in Committee, I have received a letter from one of the tobacco companies, which are often portrayed in this place as btes noires. The letter, which came from Phillip Morris, was very positive. It stated that in that company's opinion the age of sale is a matter for the Government and that as far as it is concerned smoking is an adult activity that is not for children, which shows that tobacco companies can be responsible. It is therefore appropriate to pay tribute to tobacco companies as well as criticising them.
	In conclusion, I am glad that the whole House has supported this common-sense measure, and I look forward to the age of sale being raised to 18 and incorporated into the Bill at the end of the public consultation period.

Steve Webb: The whole House will congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) on pursuing an issue and seeing it through to the point at which the public and the industry will be consulted and the House can form a view through affirmative resolution. When we debated the programme motion, I said that it was an important issue that warranted a debate. As I predicted, we did not get it. Very few people in the Housethe hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough was one of themknew what was happening when the Speaker called for new clause 6 to be added to the Bill. Such an important issue should have got an airing so that we could think it through further. At least the House has a chance to come back to it.
	It is always a good day when a Liberal Democrat manifesto policy is implemented. Of the manifestos of the three major parties, only the Liberal Democrats' contained a total ban on smoking, so my colleagues and I am delighted by the outcome of today's vote. It goes further. Of the three Front-Bench speeches that opened our debate, only onemodesty forbids my saying whichunequivocally argued for a total ban, which is what the House overwhelmingly concluded, no doubt persuaded by the oratory. To sway the House, on a free vote, to a majority of more than 200 is one of my early parliamentary highlights but no doubt not the last.
	I congratulate the Committee members who assiduously went through the Bill. I was about to say some nice things about the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), but she has left. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) was uncharacteristically ungenerous in his remarks about her, because she dealt with all the smoking aspects of the Bill in Committee, although I am not sure that one praises someone for arguing for something that they do not wholly believe in. She was obviously committed throughout to a full ban, and it was poetic that she tabled the amendment that brought it in. That seems only right and proper.
	I agree with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire that the Bill has not been well handled by the Government. In a sense, the Under-Secretary inherited a compromise. It is good that, through the evolution of the provisions, we have ended up with a clearer position. I was just discussing signage with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams). Presumably we no longer need to put up signs saying that people cannot smoke in these places because it is now the law of the land that one cannot smoke in an enclosed public place, wherever it is. That is one example of how much cleaner, simpler and more effective is the total ban that the Bill now contains. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West, who served on his first health Bill Committee with me and made an important contribution to the debates.
	Although the debate was predominantly about smoking, we also heard about MRSA and related issues. My hope would be that, although we have yet another initiative or taskforcea code of practice, in this caseit will have real teeth. The record so far is disappointing. The Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) said that the most recent set of figures on MRSA were disappointing in that they are no lower than they were 12 months ago. I join the Government in hoping, if not with a great deal of confidence, that the code of practice will bite and that we will see real changes. That is what we all want.
	In the event of a maverick voteI do not know whether one is plannedI will, with great pleasure, encourage the serried ranks of my colleagues to support the Bill's Third Reading.

David Kidney: I, too, participated in the Second Reading debate and served on the Standing Committee. It is right to praise the Ministers who steered the Bill through proceedings in this House and the Members who served on the Committee. Ministers listened to concerns expressed on Second Reading and acted in Committee. An example is the changes made on ophthalmic services. Ministers listened to cogent arguments put forward by my hon. Friends in Committee and acted on Report to make changes, the best example being on the minimum age for buying tobacco.
	All those MembersI hasten to add that I was not one of them, so I am not praising myselfwho diligently chipped away, day after day, at the arguments about the distinction between public houses that did and did not sell food have had their day. They exposed the weaknesses of that distinction and forced hon. Members to make a starker choice between the status quo and a complete ban. A pretty convincing opinion has been expressed in the House on a free vote.
	The proceedings have therefore been a success so far. One half of the process has been completed and the Bill will be off to the other place. However, as a postscript, I want to mention my disappointment about the process in this place. Through a spark of ingenuity, I persuaded House officials to accept that amendments about breast feeding came within the Bill's remit. By a stroke of good fortune, the Committee Chairman selected them for debate. Alas, I was struck down by the timetable that was imposed on our deliberations in Committee. My new clauses on breast feeding probably constituted the one issue of substance that was never considered in Committee. The Speaker did not select them for debate today. They will not be considered in the context of the Bill in the House of Commons, but I believe that they raised important issues of public health and discrimination, which must be left for another day.
	I do not know whether the same spark of ingenuity can strike twice and enable me to find another way to raise those important matters in the near future, but I look forward to the guidance on breast feeding from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence later this year because we have a poor record in this country

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that we cannot discuss what is not in the Bill on Third Reading.

David Kidney: I wondered how long it would take you to remind me of that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I simply say that the Bill will go to the other place in a good condition and I wish it well.

John Bercow: The Bill is a good measure, which was improved this afternoon. It deserves a Third Reading and, in the event of a Division, I shall be pleased enthusiastically to vote for it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone), who is sadly no longer in his place, intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) proudly to observe that he had voted in accordance with the requirements of the previous Conservative election manifesto, which specifically pledged that the Conservative party, if it formed the Government, would not introduce smoke-free legislation. I have the highest regard for the parliamentary diligence of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering and considerable respect for his decision to vote in accordance with his convictions and interpretation of his duty.
	However, I politely observeI hope within the constraints of orderthat, as an hon. Member who was not exclusively guided by the contents of the Conservative election manifesto before we fought the election, I perceive no especially good reason to be overly guided by its contents after we have fought and rather decisively lost the election. The manifesto contains some good and some bad features. We were soundly defeated and we should review

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been reasonably lenient with hon. Members, but I believe that I ruled a few moments ago that discussions should not take place about manifestos, but be confined to Third Reading.

John Bercow: That is absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker. My focus on the manifesto related specifically to the contents of the Bill, as I carefully explained in advance. I shall continue to focus on Third Reading.
	The House secured an advance this afternoon. It was frequently but wrongly suggested that the House had to choose between freedom and the nanny state. That is a perfectly honourable view, but I believe it to be mistaken. My judgment is that we had a choice between acting decisively in the interests of public health and burying our heads in the sand, ignoring the evidence and declining to do our public duty. I am glad that the House voted by such an overwhelming margin in support of a complete ban on smoking in public places.

Ann Widdecombe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Bercow: In a moment.
	There are of course colleagues who, if pressed, would probably favour banning smoking per se altogether. I think that they would be wrong. There are certainly colleagues who believe that the law should not have been changed at all. They are entitled to that view, but I think that they, too, are wrong. The bulk of the argument today focused on variations on a theme of two main options, each of which was honourable, and between which we had to decide. The options were a partial ban, of one form or another, or a total ban.
	My view is that the Bill has been improved this afternoon because a partial ban would have been undesirable. A partial ban based on a distinction between pubs that serve food and those that do not struck me as risible. It would certainly have been inequitable as between one employee and another, and it would unquestionably have been unfair to children. It would also have been a source of legal challenge, and it would demonstrably have been conducive to unfair competition between different outlets. That does not mean that it was a dishonourable proposal, but it would have had all sorts of hazardous consequences. Most Members, irrespective of party allegiance, believe that we have a duty to legislate in terms that are simple to understand, readily accepted as fair, and capable of straightforward enforcement, and I do not think that that proposal would have satisfied those criteria.
	The alternative approach was to introduce a partial ban of the type that characterised much of this afternoon's debate, namely, a ban on smoking in pubs, clubs and restaurants, with the exception of private membership clubs. I could not for the life of me see a justification for the creation of that special, untouchable category of private membership club. We seemed to be facing an unholy alliance between the devotees of gentlemen's clubs in and around St. James's, and those who are dedicated to the continued privileges of their

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I have reminded other hon. Members, that we are debating the contents of the Bill, not the proposals that have been excluded from it?

John Bercow: The House has made the right decision, and I am delighted to have got my point on the record, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know how keen you are that I should focus on the contents of the Bill.
	I believe that the Bill's smoke-free provisions are manifestly in the interests of public health. We do not have to look into the crystal ball when we can read the book. If we look at the evidence of what has happened in Ireland, we can see an improvement. We can observe what has taken place in New York, and recognise that it has resulted in a betterment of public health. It would have been curious if we had not done what we did this afternoon. After all, Scotland is to enjoy smoke-free legislation, as is Wales, and the Government certainly intend that Northern Ireland should do so. It is very much in the public interest that England should do so as well.
	This provision is good news for smokers and non-smokers alike. I believe that those who suggested that a ban would be bad news for smokers and their families are wrong. The overwhelming likelihood is that significant numbers of smokers will be encouraged, as a result of the passage of the Bill, to give up their habit. The notion that they would simply smoke in private houses in front of their children on any significant scale seems profoundly misconceived. Parents care about their children, and I do not believe that they would do that.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Bercow: No, I will not, because I know that other colleagues wish to contribute to the debate.
	The great benefit of the Bill for non-smokers is that the threat of a massively increased chance of contracting either heart disease or lung cancer has been removed. This is a good Bill. One of the best and most pithy speeches in support of it was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). Tories are in favour of public health as well, and I am glad that significant numbers of them demonstrated their commitment to it earlier. I am sure that, if tested, we should do so again.

Philip Davies: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), whom I like and admire in equal measure, but I am afraid I cannot share his general euphoria over what happened earlier. Although the vote was not surprising, I think that this is an incredibly sad day.
	We have heard excellent speeches from those on both sides of the argument. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) made a very good and courageous speech, and my hon. Friends the Members for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) brought a large dose of common sense to the debate.
	I do not smoke, and I do not like going into smoky placesso I do not do so. That is my choice. I believe that if I owned a pub or a restaurant, I should be able to decide whether people are allowed to smoke on my premises on the basis of feedback from my customers and my employees. I do not see the need for any more nanny-state Government interference. I know that Labour Members pretend to support the free market, but although they now say they support it, I do not think that they understand it. If so many people had wanted a ban on smoking in pubs, restaurants and bars, the free market would have delivered it. Businesses survive and thrive by delivering what their customers wantthat is how businesses prosper.
	Some companies were beginning to become non-smoking, and I welcome that. I welcome it when bars and restaurants become non-smoking.

Edward Miliband: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Davies: Of course I will.

Edward Miliband: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I want to be nice to him because his mother lives in my constituency. Does he agree, however, that the most powerful argument advanced today concerned the right of employees to work in a smoke-free environment? The Bill gives them that important right.

Philip Davies: I greatly admire the hon. Gentleman as well, and I am sure that there is an incredibly bright future ahead of him, whoever happens to be leading the Labour party. I am delighted that he mentioned protection for employees, because I was about to mention it myself.
	When an employer offers someone a job, he will say These are the working hours, this is the pay that you will be given, and this is the environment in which you will work. I believe that people are intelligent enough to decide for themselves whether they want to apply for and accept that job. Those on the other side of the argument appear to feel that they are far too dim to make the decision themselves, and that the Government must decide for them.

Rob Marris: I believe that before he was elected the hon. Gentleman worked for Asda, which has bacon-slicing machines in its workplaces. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, in a reputable company such as Asda, if a bacon-slicing machine was not guarded it would be up to the individual to decide whether to take a job working with that unguarded machine, thereby risking cutting off his fingers, or does he believe that there should be legislative protectionas there is, and as I believe there should be?

Philip Davies: I knew that it was a mistake to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I was nervous about doing so. I am not entirely sure that his point has any relevance to the issue of smoking.
	What worries me about the Bill is this: where will it stop? Where will it lead to? The health fascists and the zealots will not stop herethey will carry on until they have banned everybody from smoking and from eating fish and chips. There are an awful lot of dangerous jobs out there. Are we going to ban people from doing any of them? I understand that it is very dangerous to join the Army. Perhaps we will ban people from doing that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to the Third Reading of this Bill.

Philip Davies: I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was merely trying to highlight where this Bill will lead us. I

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that where the Bill might lead us is not part of the debate.

Barry Sheerman: May I help the hon. Gentleman out?

Philip Davies: No.

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is obviously struggling with his speech

Philip Davies: No.

Barry Sheerman: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Philip Davies.

Philip Davies: I suspect that the last person whom anybody who was struggling with their speech would ask for help is the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman).
	Although I fear that employees will now have more harm done to them walking to work and breathing in car fumes than they ever would have suffered by breathing in tobacco smoke at work, I will conclude my contribution, Madam Deputy Speaker, given your earlier ruling. The Bill's smoking provision marks an incredibly sad moment for someone such as me, who believes in individual liberty and freedom. However, although it is sad it is not disappointing, in that it is consistent with this, the most authoritarian, illiberal and intolerant Government whom we have seen in many a year. For all the good things that may well be in this Bill, because of this intolerant, illiberal and authoritarian measure, I am unable to support it tonight.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
	The House divided: Ayes 364, Noes 21.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Social Security

That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Rates (Capital Values, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 26th January, be approved.[Gillian Merron.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	Division deferred till Wednesday 15 February, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 16th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Secretary Hutton relating to Social Security and Pensions not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first Motion; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.[Gillian Merron.]

PETITION
	  
	Police (Cumbria)

Tim Farron: I present a petition containing more than 2,000 signatures on behalf of the residents of Cumbria.
	The petition declares:
	That Cumbria Police should not be merged with a neighbouring police force, because a merger would lead to resources being lost to more urban areas in neighbouring counties.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to stop plans to merge Cumbria Police force.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

CANADIAN SEALS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Cawsey.]

Judy Mallaber: I dedicate this debate on the commercial Canadian seal hunt to the memory of Tony Banks, an extraordinary campaigner for animal welfare. Today, I received a letter supporting us in the debate from Sally Banks, who has taken up the baton. She says:
	Tony's passionate opposition to this barbarous hunt is the reason that I have pledged to continue his work.
	Sally says that the issue was close to Tony's heart, so perhaps it is appropriate that on Valentine's day we are holding a debate on the massacre of seal pups for their furappropriate as long as we win the argument and achieve the ban that we all want.
	Last year, the Humane Society of the United States witnessed and filmed the killing of harp seals to the north of Prince Edward island. This morning, I watched the film again; it does not make for easy viewing. It starts with a seemingly endless shot of a seal pup gurgling slowly to death in its own blood. I challenge anyone to watch that film and not be sickened, and not to want to do all that we can to stop such barbaric slaughter. The main contribution that we can make in this country is to block the trade in seal products that fuels that slaughter. I shall discuss the legal case for such a ban, but first I shall set out the arguments for a ban and, secondly, the Government's opposition to the seal hunt, which has already been expressed in a previous Adjournment debate in 2003.
	The callous routine brutality used by those who kill the seals must be seen to be believed. In that film, the sealers can be seen running from seal to seal, hitting as many as they can, as quickly as they can. They do not even stop to see whether the seals that they have hit are dead. Those in the film show as much regard for the rules as they do for the seals.
	The Canadian GovernmentI have a letter to this effectclaim that the hunt is humanely conducted, but I have detailed quotes from two experts who viewed the film footage. Dr. Donald Broom, professor of animal welfare at Cambridge university, notes that many of the seals were still conscious after being clubbed. The chief veterinary officer of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Dr. Steve Cheetham, was appalled and talks of pain and suffering and the incompetence of the sealers, but that is clear to anyone who looks at the film, the end shot of which shows a seal struggling, exhausted, in a pool of blood and icy water.
	The conduct of the hunt is partly due to the way in which the Canadian Government design the quota system. An overall limit is set, so the sealers race around to kill as many seals as they can individually and by boat until the total is met. The hunt is inherently cruel. Many people, probably most people, do not even realise that the hunt still happens each year. They think that it ended back in the 1980s, but in fact twice as many seals are killed today as back then and it is the largest, most brutal slaughter of marine mammals anywhere on the planet.
	In 1983, a long time back, the European Economic Community banned the import of furs and products made from whitecoat sealsnew-born harp seals until they begin to moult when they are just 10 days oldand bluebacks, which are young hooded seals. The sealers now cynically wait a few days until the harp seals are approximately four weeks oldstill pups, unable to swim and have never eaten a solid meal. In the United States, it is illegal to trade in marine mammal products and there is no Canadian market, but those clubbed seal pups have moulted, so their skins are legally imported into the European Union and the United Kingdom. The crux of tonight's argument is to stop that trade.
	The last time that the Canadian seal hunt was debated in the House was on 4 November 2003, when the then Minister for Trade and Investmentnow the Solicitor-Generalstated that the Government
	do not accept the need for any seal cull.
	He continued,
	we do not accept that clubbing is acceptable.
	He said that it
	does Canada's reputation a great deal of damage.[Official Report, 4 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 21921WH.]
	He also said that the Canadian Government had been asked to consider a total ban on the commercial seal hunt. Since that debate, more than 600,000 seal pups have been clubbed to death or shot on the ice floes of eastern Canada during two more years of the commercial hunt. I will not quote the horrific description of a seal being skinned alive while still conscious, given by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) in that debate a couple of years ago. Many seals escape from being shot to die in agony from their injuries.
	It is abundantly clear that the Canadian Government continue to ignore our Government's overtures, as well as public opinion, including that of the majority of their own citizens who want an end to the hunt, according to a survey commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare in Canada in 2005. The Canadian Government also ignore evidence on conservation and biodiversity issues. I have here a review by Professor Stephen Harris, who shows that the Canadian modelling of the seal population and quotas is unsafe and that there is a serious threat to the survival of the seal population.
	To get to the heart of the matter, what should our Government do? What are we asking? What action do we want? Part of the problem with the United Kingdom's position is that by continuing to allow the import of seal products that come from the hunt, the Government are sending out a mixed message to Canada. On one hand, they say that they disapprove of the hunt, while on the other, they are saying that it is okay to trade in the products. It is not, and until we ban the import and trade in all the hunt's products, we too have the seals' blood on our hands.

Rob Marris: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) for the tireless work that they have done on this issue. Is she aware that, if we were to implement some sort of trade ban, it would be widely supported in Canada? I say that as someone who lived in Canada for nine years and has extensive links there. In fact, I am a Canadian citizen, as well as a UK citizen. What happens is absolutely horrifying. I am sure that there would be widespread support in Canada for a trade ban.

Judy Mallaber: I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely helpful information.
	The trade has been banned in the United State since 1972. Greenland, which carries out its own indigenous seal hunt, recently stopped all imports of seal skins from Canada. I understand that that happened just after pictures of the Canadian seal hunt were broadcast on national TV there. If the film that I watched this morning was shown on our television, the Minister would be inundated with requests to ban hunting, although I am not sure that our television companies would wish to show such horrific filming.
	Earlier this week, the Italian Government announced a temporary ban on the import of seal products and announced their introduction of a Bill to end the trade permanently. Mexico decided last week to prohibit the trade in all marine mammal products, and Belgium now has a licensing scheme for imports, but has made it clear that no licences will be issued and that it will also bring in comprehensive legislation.
	The case for banning the import of, and trade in, seal products is now overwhelming. A recent opinion poll commissioned by Respect for Animals found that 79 per cent. of people in Britain want the seal hunt to be banned and that 73 per cent. agree that the Government should act to ban the import of seal products. I pay tribute to Respect for Animals, which has provided me with information for this debate. It is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker). If he did not have to act as a Trappist monk as a Whip, I know that he would wish to be up here introducing the debate.
	I specifically wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that he has seen the legal opinion obtained by Respect for Animals and IFAW and given by Philippe Sands QC, one of the world's leading experts on international law and European trade. It shows in great detail the legal basis for his clear and strong view that the UK, under World Trade Organisation rules, can legally ban the import of harp and hooded seal products.

Nick Palmer: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) and to many others in Respect for Animals who have campaigned on this issue. Is she aware of the similar debate on the ban on cat and dog fur imports in which the European Commissioner responsible said that, in his view, it was a matter for national Governments to decide whether they would prevent the import of such products? We do not need to be concerned about that aspect of the issue.

Judy Mallaber: That is extremely helpful; it confirms one of the points that I was about to come to. I am well aware of all the work that my hon. Friend has done on the issue.
	I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that he has seen the legal opinion and to say whether he has a preliminary opinion on itI know that it is still out with the lawyersand when he expects to respond. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) said, some are trying to persuade the Minister that the United Kingdom does not have competence and that this is a matter for the European Union. The fact that that point was not accepted in the case of cat and dog fur products is extremely helpful.
	The legal opinion that I have specifically states:
	The adoption of a unilateral extension of the current ban by a Member State would raise substantively the same issues as a matter of WTO law (but not as a matter of European Community law).
	The opinion that Philippe Sands gives, which is about the basis for the extension of a ban by the European Union, also applies in exactly the same way to member states. He argues:
	It is strongly arguable that an extension by the EU
	and therefore by member states
	of the current ban, to cover older harp and hooded seals will be compatible with the rules of the WTO on the basis that, although it would almost certainly constitute a restriction on trade . . . it could be justified under Article XX(a) on the grounds that it is a measure necessary to protect morals. We also consider that, in the alternative, there may also be good arguments that the measure may be justifiable under Article XX(b) as a measure necessary to protect the health of animals and/or under Article XX(g) as a measure relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources.

David Taylor: The Canadian Government often argue that this barbaric practice continues in order to protect fish stocks and the recovery of those of Atlantic cod. However, recent global studies show that marine mammals very rarely conflict with the fish that are commercially fished. There is relatively no overlap, so that argument does not hold water.

Judy Mallaber: A number of arguments about fishing and sealing in the Canadian context do not make any sense.

Brooks Newmark: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Judy Mallaber: Yes, but I want to allow the Minister time to respond.

Brooks Newmark: I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing the debate to the House and pay tribute to Tony Banks. I am most concerned with the animal welfare issue. I would like the people listening to imagine their dog or their cat being clubbed and then skinned alive. It is the animal welfare issue that we should be most concerned about.

Judy Mallaber: I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, the Minister has to be able to counter all the legal arguments that have been made on why we cannot enforce a ban, so we are trying to prove that we can. We have a legal opinion that shows that we can do that in the primary argument made by Philippe Sands about protecting public morals.
	The ethical argument for banning the seal hunt is made comprehensively and with great authority by Rev. Professor Andrew Linzey in the pamphlet Public Morality and the Canadian Seal Hunt. He talks about how the activity is devoid of moral justification and his detailed conclusions have been endorsed by more than 70 leading academics, theologians and philosophers from 14 countries. The other aspects of the legal opinion by Philippe Sands are detailed and comprehensively argue why, under several strands of the WTO rules, it would be completely possible for us to go ahead with the ban.
	The matter is more critical than ever this year because the melting of the ice will present a real threat to seals' whelping areas in Canada. Will the Minister call on the Canadian Government to respond to the situation by banning the hunt this year as a matter of emergency? I urge him to accept the legal arguments to which I have referred and ban the appalling trade.
	The Canadians will say that they are arguing for their sealing community. Sealers are fishermen who make a small sum by killing seals for just a few days a year. The activity is dangerous, dehumanising and provides them with less than 5 per cent. of their annual income. Some 1,200 sealers have died during the history of the seal hunt and two died as recently as 2002. The Canadian Government already have measures in place on fishing diversity and compensation for fishermen that could be applied to the sealing industry, so their argument does not hold water.
	The ban in other countries has not been challenged, so I do not think that a ban that we enforced would necessarily be challenged. I know that the Minister will be given endless arguments by civil servants and lawyers about why it would be legally impossible to enforce a ban, but we have strong legal advice that suggests that it would be possible. We will have to bite the bullet, go ahead with a ban and challenge the Canadians on the matter. They have not taken it up with other countries, so there is no real reason to expect them to do that with us. We should thus go ahead with a ban.
	Two early-day motions before the House refer to the seal hunt. Early-day motion 237 has been signed by 182 Members. It notes that trade data show that thousands of seal skins were imported into the UK between 1995 and 2003 and calls on the Government to prohibit the import of all seal products into the UK.
	Early-day motion 1416, which was tabled more recentlyin only the past month, I believealready has 118 signatures. It honours the life and work of Tony Banks. At the time of Tony's death, he had started a new initiative and was working with Respect for Animals to encourage people and retail outlets to boycott Canadian seafood products. I understand that most of the trade into this country goes straight out again to other European countries, so we probably cannot create pressure as easily as we could through a consumer boycott. The Government must thus put the main pressure directly on the Canadian Government through a legal ban. They must also try to persuade other European countries to go ahead with a ban.
	Early-day motion 1416 also calls on the Government to ban the trade in harp and hooded seal products. As Sally Banks wrote to me:
	the most fitting tribute to Tony is to achieve a ban of this vile Hunt.
	We have put forward arguments on how the Minister can achieve that. On behalf of the hon. Members who signed the early-day motions and those who would like to sign them, but cannot because of their ministerial positions, on behalf of the British and Canadian publicmy hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) mentioned Canadian viewswhose attitude has been shown in opinion polls both in Canada and this country, on behalf of simple human decency and, finally, as the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) pointed out, on behalf of the seal cubs that are brutally clubbed to death each year and have no voice of their own, will the Government take the simple legal and effective step of banning the import of all harp and hooded seal products?

Ian Pearson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on securing this debate. This is a subject of long-standing public interest and one about which many hon. Members feel strongly. In addition to my hon. Friend, I acknowledge the interventions by my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), and by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark). I acknowledge, too, the interest shown in the debate by my hon. Friend the Members for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), for Dudley, North (Mr. Austin) and for Eccles (Ian Stewart), and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton, West (Mr. McAvoy). No doubt many more hon. Members would wish to contribute if this were a longer debate.
	The strength of opinion on this issue is reflected in early-day motions 237 and 1416. Early-day motion 1416 recognises the great work in the field of animal welfare carried out by the late Tony Banks, and calls on the Government to prohibit the trade in all harp and hooded seal products in the UK as soon as possible. I am sure that hon. Members would want me to join my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley by endorsing the contribution made to the House by our former colleague and paying tribute to the passion and humour that he brought to the causes for which he fought.
	I assure the House that the Government make their opposition to the seal hunt known to the Canadian authorities on a regular basis. We maintain an active interest in issues surrounding conservation and sustainability, animal welfare and control of the trade in seal products. I met Mark Glover and Nicky Brookes from Respect for Animals, together with their colleague, Rebecca Aldworth from the Canada section of the Humane Society of the United States, on 15 June last year, and we had an informative exchange on these subjects. Officials from the Foreign Office have since had regular contact with both organisations. I am aware of the results of the opinion poll conducted on behalf of Respect for Animals on attitudes towards the seal hunt in the UK, to which my hon. Friend referred and which clearly indicate that a majority of the people interviewed for the survey believe that the hunt should not be allowed to continue. Almost three quarters were in favour of a ban on seal products in the UK.
	The UK and Canada have common traditions and attitudes. We share close historical links and a strong relationship, which involves working together in a number of international forums. Canada is a liberal country with values similar to ours. The association between Canada and seal clubbing clearly does the reputation of Canadians no good at all. We hope that they will recognise that soon and end all commercial seal hunting. We will continue to press the Canadian Government on that issue. As hon. Members are aware, the hunt focuses on two main speciesthe harp seal and the hooded seal. The Canadian Government argue that the commercial seal hunt quota is based on sound conservation principles to maintain a sustainable seal population. They state, too, that the hunt provides valuable income to a large number of sealers and their families in Eastern Canada. They argue that the harp seal population has almost tripled since 1970 and their most recent estimate puts the north-west Atlantic stock of harp seals at 5.9 million animals. As my hon. Friend said, the Canadian seal hunt is regulated by quotas set by the Canadian Government and based on the total allowable catchTAC in the terminology of the fishing industrywhich hon. Members may find inappropriate or offensive given what happens in the hunt. The TAC for 200305 was set at 975,000 harp seals to meet the Canadian Government's plan to reduce the current population of harp seals from 5.9 million to 4.7 million by 2006.

Judy Mallaber: Have the Minister's civil servants looked at the study by Professor Stephen Harris, which contests the Canadian Government's modelling and casts serious doubt on the size of the seal population and the diversity of stock?

Ian Pearson: I am well aware of those different views, which is why I made it clear that the estimate was made by the Canadian Government, who believe that the hooded seal population is 470,000. A new population survey was conducted last year, but the results are not yet available. The 2006 TAC for hooded seals is 10,000, and the figure has been set at that level for a number of years. With respect to hooded seals, however, it is our understanding that a total of only about 500 have been taken in Canada since 1999.

Eric Martlew: My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) made a brilliant speech. Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware of the strength of feeling on the matter among hon. Members? If the Belgians and the Italians, who are also members of the European Union, have introduced a ban, why cannot the Minister announce tonight that Britain will do the same?

Ian Pearson: I shall come to that in a moment.
	The methods used in hunting seals have long been mired in controversy. Canada's Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing found that those methods compared favourably to those used to kill any other wild or domestic animal. Despite that, it is alleged that thousands of seals are killed each year inhumanely. Respect for Animals claims that in 2005, 40 per cent. of the seals were skinned while still alive.
	The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association claims that 98 per cent. of seals taken during the seal hunt are killed in an acceptably humane manner. Even if that figure is accurateit is the subject of much disputethis still means that a significant number of animals are not killed effectively. We fully support continued attention being paid by the veterinary profession to the conduct of the seal hunt. If seal hunts are to continue, it is vital that the Canadian Government closely regulate and monitor the hunt to ensure that no seals suffer improper treatment or are killed inhumanely.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley referred to the European seals directive, which was introduced in 1983 and extended in 1989 prior to the entry into force of the World Trade Organisation agreement on 1 January 1995. As she knows, it protects harp and hooded seals from over-exploitation but requires member states only to prohibit the commercial importation of skins and other listed products of certain harp and hooded seal pups. The prohibition, rightly, does not apply to seal products resulting from traditional hunting by the Inuit people, as it recognises that that forms an important part of their traditional way of life and economy and does not have a negative impact on seal populations.

Brooks Newmark: Will the Minister give way?

Ian Pearson: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have only a few minutes in which to answer questions on the legal matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley.
	The seals directive was transposed into UK legislation by means of the Import of Seal Skins Regulations 1996. The regulations prohibit the commercial importation of raw, tanned or dressed furskins, and other products from whitecoat harp and blueback hooded seal pups. I should explain that a whitecoat pup is a harp seal up to approximately two and a half weeks old, and a blueback is a hooded seal up to approximately 16 months old. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the issue is that sealers wait longer than two and a half weeks and are then free to take the animals.
	We are aware that a number of non-governmental organisations and members of the public are calling for an extension of the directive to cover products from all harp and hooded seals, not just whitecoat and blueback pups. However, the view of the European Commission is that there is currently no scientific basis to warrant an extension of the seals directive on conservation grounds. According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources' red list of threatened species, neither the harp nor hooded seal species are classified as endangered.
	We understand that there is evidence that ice conditions this year in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are extremely poor, and that a recent ice map of the area compared to the same time last year shows considerably less ice, which is generally thin and broken up. This is cause for concern and we will continue to monitor the situation closely.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the situation in Belgium. It is my understanding that the Belgian Government have introduced a licensing requirement for the importation of seal, cat and dog fur products, but that is not a ban on the importation of seal products; it merely imposes a requirement to apply for a licence on anyone wishing to import such an item. They have a royal decree that proposes to introduce a labelling requirement for cat, dog and seal fur products, but it is still at a fairly early stage. I have asked officials to look into the approach that is being adopted in Belgium. It appears, however, that the Belgian Government have concerns about whether a ban could be justified under both European Union and World Trade Organisation rules. I shall talk to officials about the matter.
	My hon. Friend raised the question of the legal opinion commissioned by Respect for Animals and the International Fund for Animal Welfare on the EU member state ban on the importation of seal products and its compatibility with the WTO agreement. I have seen the opinion. I am not legally qualified, and it is currently being considered by officials. We acknowledge that there are arguments both for and against WTO compatibility of any extended important ban. As the opinion itself notes, determining WTO compatibility would turn on the nature and scope of the precise measures. I am happy to have further dialogue with hon. Members, NGOs and interested parties on the legal opinion.

Judy Mallaber: Does my hon. Friend accept that the civil servants and lawyers will keep on at him, telling him that there are legal arguments why he cannot do it, and that at some time we must grasp the nettle, go ahead and do it? They will argue him into the ground; that is what will happen.

Ian Pearson: Let me respond directly to my hon. Friend by giving her my commitment that I will talk to civil servants about the legal opinion and that I am very happy to have meetings with her and NGOs on the issue, and fully to explore it and see what can be done.
	The Government take every appropriate opportunity to remind the Canadians of our opposition to the hunt. I assure the House that we will continue to review the options for tighter restrictions or a ban on trade in seal products in the light of the legal opinion and issues of sustainability, conservation and animal welfare.
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.